Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 299 - Drury v. Cross

Drury v. Cross’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 299 · 1868

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
December 2005
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably Josiah Coder v. William Arts (1909), Twin-Lick Oil Company v. Marbury (1875)

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 19 states

190186818701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

  1. “The scheme to acquire the property of this corporation was, in its inception, fraudulent, and every step in the progress of its execution was necessarily stamped with the same character.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The transactions which this case discloses cannot be sustained by a court of equity. The conduct of the directors of this railroad corporation was very discreditable and without authority of law. It was their duty to administer the important matters committed to their charge, for the mutual benefit of all parties interested, and in securing an advantage to themselves, not common to the other creditors, they were guilty of a plain breach, of trust.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “was calculated to destroy all competition among the bidders, and, indeed, to exclude from the purchase everyone, except those engaged in the perpetration of the fraud.”
    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.