Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 U.S. 298 - Miller v. Tiffany

Miller v. Tiffany’s Empirical Analysis

68 U.S. 298 · 1863

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Liverpool & Great Western Steam Co. v. Phenix Insurance (1889), Cromwell v. County of Sac (1877)

37 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions

1801863187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. ““The converse of this proposition is also well settled. If the rate of interest be higher at the place of the contract than at the place of performance, the parties may lawfully contract in that case, also, for the higher rate.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The general principle in relation to contracts made in one place, to be executed in another, is well settled, They are to be governed by the law of the place of performance, and, if the interest allowed by the laws of the place of performance is higher than that permitted at the place of the contract, the parties may stipulate for higher interest without incurring the penalties of usury.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““A person contracting for the payment of interest may contract to pay it either at the rat'e of the ‘place of contract,’ or at that of the ‘place of performance,’ as one or the other may he agreed on by himself and the creditor; and the fact that the rate of the place at which it is agreed that it shall be paid is higher than the rate in the other place will not expose the transaction to the imputation of usury, unless the place agreed on was fixed for the purpose of obtaining the higher rate, and to evade the penalty of a usurious contract at the other place.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.