Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 205 - Brown v. Pierce

Brown v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 205 · 1868

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
March 1991
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 6 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1991 · most notably Newburyport Water Company v. City of Newburyport (1904), Furnish v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1958)

21 federal appellate · 6 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 20 states

18018681870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Young v. Grundy · Harmony v. Bingham

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

  1. “* * * and duress is still often defined as that degree of constraint or danger, either actually inflicted or threatened and impending, which is sufficient in severity or in apprehension to overcome the mind and will of a person of ordinary firmness”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “.“Authorities are not wanting to the effect that all matters well alleged in the bill of complaint, which the answer neither denies nor avoids, are admitted; but the better opinion is the other way, as the sixly-first rule adopted by this court provides that, if no exception thereto shall be filed within the period therein prescribed, the answer shall be deemed and taken to be sufficient. Material allegations in the bill of complaint ought to be answered and admitted, or denied, if the facts are within the knowledge of the respondent; and, if not, lie ought to state wha.t his belief is upon the subject, if ho has any, and if he has none, and cannot form any, he ought to say so, and call on the complainant for proof of the alleged facts, or waive that branch of the controversy; but the clear'weight of authority is that a mere statement by the respondent in his answer, as in this case, that lie has no knowledge that the fact is as stated, without any answer as to his belief concerning it, is not such an admission as is to be received as full evidence of the fact Such an answer docs not make it, necessary for the complainant to introduce more than one witness to overcome ihe defense, and the well-known omissions and defects of such an answer may have some tendency to prove the allegations of the bill of complaint, but they are not such an admission of the same as will constitute a sufficient foundation for a decree upon the merits.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * contracts procured by threats of battery to the person or the destruction of property, may be avoided on the ground of duress, because in such a case there is nothing but the form of a contract, without the substance.””
    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.