Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 542 - Coppell v. Hall

Coppell v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 542 · 1868

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
21
cited 21 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 4 district · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Olmstead v. United States (1928), McMullen v. Hoffman (1899)

25 federal appellate · 4 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 25 states

31018681870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 The Rapid, Perry, Master · The Julia, Luce, Master

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

  1. ““ ... In such cases there can be no waiver. The defense is allowed, not for the sake of the defendant, but of the law itself. The principle is indispensable to the purity of its administration. It will not enforce what it has forbidden and denounced. The maxim, ex dolo malo non oritur actio, is limited by no such qualification. The proposition to the contrary strikes us as hardly worthy of serious refutation. Whenever the illegality appears, whether the evidence comes from one side or the other, the disclosure is fatal to the case. No consent of the defendant can neutralize its effect. A stipulation in the most solemn form to waive the objection, would be tainted with the vice of the original contract, and void for the same reasons. Wherever the contamination reaches, it destroys. The principle to be extracted from all the cases is, that the law will not lend its support to a claim founded upon its violation. Morck v. Abel, 3 Bosanquet & Puller, 35; Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheat. 258 [ 6 L. Ed. 468 ]; Collins v. Blantern, 1 Smith’s Leading Cases, 630, and notes.””
    19 later decisions 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.