Pennock v. Coe’s Empirical Analysis
64 U.S. 117 · 1859
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 9 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2020 · most notably Fosdick v. Schall (1878), Cascade Natural Gas Corporation v. El Paso Natural Gas Co People of State of California (1967)
30 federal appellate · 9 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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 Seymour & Brown v. Canandaigua & Niagara Falls Rail Road · Otis v. Sill · Rose v. Bevan · Doe ex dem. McGintry v. Reeves
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`a person cannot grant a thing which he has not:' ille non habet, non dat * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““All the present and future-to-be-acquired property of the parties of the first part; that is to say, their road, made or to be made, including the right of way and the land occupied thereby, together with the superstructure and tracks thereon, and all rails and other materials used therein, or procured therefor with the above-described bonds, or the money obtained therefor, bridges, viaducts, culverts, fences, depots, grounds and buildings thereon, engines, tenders, cars, tools, machinery, materials, contracts, and all other personal property, right thereto, or interest therein, together with the tolls, rents or income to be had or levied therefrom, and all franchises, rights and privileges of the parties of the first part in, to or concerning the same.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Campbell v. Quinton“have a common interest in this security, and are all equally entitled to the benefit of it; and in case of a deficiency of the fund to satisfy the whole of the debt, in equity, a distribution is made among the holder^ pro rata. ... To permit, therefore, one of the bondholders under the second mortgage to proceed at law in the collection of his debt upon execution would not only disturb the pro rata distribution in case of a deficiency, ánd give him an inequitable preference over his associates, but also have the effect to prejudice the superior equity óf the bondholders under the first mortgage, which possesses the prior lien.”
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.