Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 F.1d 94 - McKinley v. Williams

McKinley v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

74 F. 94 · 1896

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Myzel v. Fields (1967), Trice v. Comstock (1903)

35 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

901896190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Mills v. Green · Kimberly v. Arms · The State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Company et al. · Antoine Michoud v. Peronne Bernardine Girod · Brooks v. Martin

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

  1. “[T]he measure of damages for the failure to sell or to deliver stocks and like speculative property, or for the conversion thereof, is the highest market value which the property attains between the time when the contract required its sale or delivery, or the time of its conversion, and the expiration of a reasonable time, to enable the owner to put himself in status quo, after notice to him of the failure to comply with the contract, or of the conversion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No agent who conceals or fails to disclose the material facts and circumstances relative to the subject-matter of his agency, that are known to him and unknown to his principal, can make a binding contract with his principal as to that subject-matter to his own advantage. That uberrima tides which the relation of principal and agent demands forbids such contracts, and strips the agent of every benefit which he obtains by such a betrayal of his trust.””
    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.