Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 U.S. 346 - Clagett v. Kilbourne

Clagett v. Kilbourne’s Empirical Analysis

66 U.S. 346 · 1861

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
December 1959
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1959

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

401861187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Nathan Hooper Louisa Hooper and Amanda Hooper Minors by Absalom Fowler Their Next Friend v. Jacob Scheimer

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

  1. ““Execution may be levied on the joint property with the view of reaching the undivided interest of the judgment debtors, but in such case the levy is not upon his individual share, as if there were no debts of the partnership, or lien on the same, for the balance due to the other partners. It is upon the interest only of the judgment debtor, if any, in the property, after the payment of all the partnership debts, and other charges thereon. The purchaser takes the same interest in the property which the judgment debtor would have upon a final adjustment of all the accounts of the partnership. It is not only an undivided, but an unascertained interest, and the purchaser is substituted to the rights and interests of the judgment debtor in the property sold. Neither does the sale transfer any part of the joint property to the purchaser, so as to entitle him to take it from the other partners; for that -would be to place him in a better situation than the partner (judgment debtor) himself.””
    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.