Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 68 WIS 651 - Galloway v. Hamilton

Galloway v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

1887

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
states following
February 1986
most recently cited

1 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 1986

1 district · 14 state decisions

5018871890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Cook v. Tullis · Jones v. Green · McElwain v. Willis · Cornell v. Radway · Taylor v. Robinson

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

  1. ““In this case the deed was never countersigned by the secretary, and, as we understand his testimony, he subsequently refused to sign the instrument when presented to him some few weeks after its date. It is claimed that the act of the president in executing the deed was subsequently ratified. But, if it was, the ratification could not affect the plaintiff’s lien, which had previously attached. For ‘the general rule as to the effect of ratification by one of the unauthorized acts of another respecting the property of the former, is well settled. The ratification operates upon the act ratified precisely as though authority to do the act had been previously given, except where the rights of third parties have intervened between the act and the ratification. The retroactive efficacy of the ratification is subject to this qualification. The intervening rights of third persons cannot be defeated by the ratification. In other words, it is essential that the party ratifying should be able not merely to do the act ratified at the time the act was done, but also at the time the ratification was made.’ Cook v. Tullis, 18 Wall. 332, 338 ; Taylor v. Robinson, 14 Cal. 401 ; Story on Agency, §§ 241-244."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “where a general law provides ... the mode in which a deed of a corporation conveying its real estate shall be executed, this mode must be adopted in order to its validity [sic] as a corporate act.”
    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.