Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 U.S. 387 - Bushnell v. Kennedy

Bushnell v. Kennedy’s Empirical Analysis

76 U.S. 387 · 1869

Citation profile

149
cited by 149 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
December 1975
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 16 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 149 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1975 · most notably Goldey v. Morning News (1895), Gaines v. Fuentes (1875)

27 federal appellate · 16 district · 9 state decisions

470186918701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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

  1. ““It may be observed tbat tbe denial of jurisdiction of suits by assignees bas never been taken in an absolutely literal sense. It bas been beld tbat suits upon notes payable to a particular individual or to bearer may be maintained by tbe bolder, without any allegation of citizenship of tbe original payee, tbougb it is not to be doubted tbat tbe holder’s title to tbe note could only be derived through transfer or assignment. So, too, it bas been decided, where tbe assignment was by will, tbat tbe restriction is not applicable to tbe representative of tbe decedent. And it bas also been determined tbat the assignee of a chose in action may maintain a suit in the Circuit Court to recover possession of the specific thing, or damages for its wrongful caption or detention, thougn the court would have no jurisdiction of the suit if brought by the assignors.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No circuit court shall have cognizance of any suit to recover the contents ■of any promissory note or other chose in action in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover the contents, if no assignment had been made.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““That the indebtedness of Bushnell to Mills & Frisby was a chose in action cannot be doubted; for under that comprehensive description are included all debts, and all claims for damages for breach of contract, or for torts connected with contract.””
    2 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.