Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 416 - Sheets v. Selden

Sheets v. Selden’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 416 · 1868

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
June 2003
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 5 district · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2003 · most notably Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Ass'n (1928), United States v. Forness (1942)

36 federal appellate · 5 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 21 states

230186818701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Washington County v. Durant

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

  1. ““The grounds upon which a court of equity proceeds are that the rent is the object of the parties, and the forfeiture only an incident intended to secure its payment; that the measure of damages is fixed and certain; and that when the principal and interest are paid the compensation is complete. In respect to other covenants pertaining to leasehold estates, where the elements of fraud, accident, and mistake are wanting, and the measure of compensation is uncertain, equity will not interfere. • It allows the forfeiture to be enforced, if such is the remedy provided by the contract. This rule is applied to the covenant to repair, to insure, and not to assign.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In the case of Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal v. Brett, the trustees had leased so'much of the surplus water of the canal as might be necessary for the purposes specified. The right was reserved, upon payment for the mill to be built by the lessee, to resume the use of the water leased whenever it might be necessary for navigation, or whenever its use for hydraulic purposes should be found to interfere with the navigation of the canal. It was averred that the trustees had abandoned that part of the canal, and suffered it to go to decay, so that the water power was destroyed and the plaintiff’s mill rendered valueless. The court held that there was no implied covenant to keep the canal in repair, that the express provision for compensation in one case excluded the implication of such rights in all others, and that the plaintiff was without remedy.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Both courts of law and of equity have power to give relief in cases of this kind. Courts of law give it upon motion, which may be made before or after judgment. If after judgment, it must be made before the execution is executed. The rent due, with interest and costs, must be paid. Upon this being done, a final stay of proceedings is ordered.””
    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.