Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 U.S. 66 - Leggett v. Humphreys

Leggett v. Humphreys’s Empirical Analysis

62 U.S. 66 · 1858

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
November 1994
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1994 · most notably Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. (1944), Jenkins v. National Surety Co. (1928)

14 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions

90185818601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Miller v. Stewart · United States v. Boyd · Stevens v. Bell · M'Gill v. President of the Bank

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[S]ureties are never held responsible beyond the clear and absolute terms and meaning of their undertakings.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the case before us, the surety had been compelled to pay the whole amount of his bond by process from the State courts, before the present defendants obtained their judgment against him, but after the institution of their suit. This would have been a good defence to the action if pleaded puis darrein continuance * * * ” p. 313, 13 L.Ed. 145”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.