Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 F.1d 427 - City of Findlay v. Pertz

City of Findlay v. Pertz’s Empirical Analysis

66 F. 427 · 1895

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2003 · most notably United States v. Carter (1910), Alexander Magruder v. Samuel a Drury (1914)

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

80189519001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Oscanyan v. Arms Co. · Tool Company v. Norris · Young v. Hughes · Moore v. Mandlebaum · Adams Mining Co. v. Senter

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Any agreement or understanding between one principal and tbe agent of another, by which such agent is to receive a commission or reward if he will use his influence with his principal to induce a contract, or enter into a contract.for his principal, is pernicious and corrupt, and cannot be enforced at law. This principle is founded upon the plainest principles of reason and morality, and has been sanctioned by the courts in. innumerable cases. ‘It has its foundation in the very constitution of our nature,’ says Judge Dillon, ‘for it has authoritatively been declared that a man cannot serve two masters, and is recognized and enforced wherever a well-regulated system of jurisprudence prevails.’ 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.) § 444. ‘An agent cannot be allowed to put himself in a position in which his interest and his duty will be in conflict.’ Beake, Oont. (3d Ed.) 409. The tendency of such an agreement is to corrupt the fidelity of the agent, and is a fraud upon his principal, and is not enforceable, ‘even though it does not induce the agent to act corruptly.’ ‘It would be most mischievous to hold that a man could come into a court of law to enforce such a bargain on the ground that he was not in fact corrupted. It is quite immaterial that the employer was not damaged.’ Wald's Pol. Cont. (2d Am. Ed.) 245, 246, and note a, citing Harrington v. Dock Co., 3 Q. B. Div. 549, and other cases. See, also, Taussig v. Hart, 58 N. Y. 425 ; United States Rolling Stock Co. v. Atlantic & G. ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Any agreement or understanding between one principal and the agent of another, by which such agent is to receive a commission or reward if he will use his influence with his principal to induce a contract, or enter Into a contract for his principa], is pernicious and corrupt, and cannot be enforced at law. This principle is founded upon the plainest principle of reason and morality, and has been sanctioned by the courts in innumerable cases.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “utterly vicious, unspeakably pernicious, and an unmixed evil”
    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.