Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 F.1d 401 - Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Emma Silver Mining Co. of New York

Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Emma Silver Mining Co. of New York’s Empirical Analysis

7 F. 401 · 1880

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 1969
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1969

7 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

70188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Cromwell v. County of Sac · Connihan v. Thompson · Emery v. Fowler · Kimball v. Cunningham · Castle v. . Noyes

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. ““The weight of authority, however, is that where an agent in a transaction is sued after the termination of his agency, and upon a trial of the merits the issue is determined against the plaintiff, the principal, though not a party to the suit, can avail himself of the judgment as a bar, when he is sued by the same plaintiff on the same cause of action. While the principal, if he had no notice of the former suit, and no opportunity to defend it, may not be concluded by a judgment against his former agent, or made responsible by the agent’s bad pleading or blunders in the trial of the cause, because so to conclude him would be to deprive him of his property without due process of law, yet, as regards the plaintiff who has before sued the agent and been defeated, there is no reason why he should not be concluded upon that principle of public policy which gives every man one opportunity to prove his case, and limits every man to one such opportunity. He has had his day in court, and it is immaterial whether he has chosen to test his right as against the principal or the agent in the transaction, provided the issue to be tried was identical as against both.””
    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.