Purcell v. Miner’s Empirical Analysis
71 U.S. 513 · 1866
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 12 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1998 · most notably Joseph Guffey v. James a Smith (1915), Shappirio v. Goldberg (1904)
27 federal appellate · 12 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A mere breach of a parol promise will not make a case for the interference of a chancellor. It is plain that a party who claims such interference has the burden of proof thrown on him. He knows that the law requires written evidence of such contracts, in order to their validity. He has acted with great negligence and- folly who has paid his money without getting his deed. When he requests a court to interfere for him, and save him from the consequences of his own disregard of the law, he should be held rigidly to full, satisfactory, and indubitable proof.””
13 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dunphy v. Ryan · Ducie v. Ford
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.