Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 U.S. 73 - United States v. Hooe Et Al.

United States v. Hooe Et Al.’s Empirical Analysis

7 U.S. 73 · 1805

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
29
cited 29 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
January 2020
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 14 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2020 · most notably United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. (1926), Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819)

31 federal appellate · 14 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 11 states

25018051810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

  1. ““The words of the act extend the meaning of the word ‘insolvency’ to cases where ‘a debtor, not' having sufficient property to pay all his debts, shall have made a voluntary assignment thereof, for the benefit of his or her creditors.’ The word ‘property’ is unquestionably all the property which the debtor possesses; and the word ‘thereof’ refers to the word ‘property’ as used, and can only be satisfied by an assignment of all the property of the debtor. Had the Legislature contemplated a partial assignment, the words ‘or part thereof,’ or others of similar import, would have been added.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"In construing the statute on this subject, it has been stated by the court, on great deliberation, that the priority to which the United States are entitled does not partake of the character of a lien on the property of public debtors. This distinction is always to be recollected."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The difference is a marked one between a conveyance which purports to be absolute and a conveyance which from its terms is to leave the possession in the vendor. If in the latter case the retaining of possession was evidence of fraud, no mortgage could be valid.””
    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.