Feild v. Farrington’s Empirical Analysis
77 U.S. 141 · 1869
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2006 · most notably Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911), Helvering v. Gerhardt (1938)
3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The effect of his refusal to reply to their letter within a reasonable time after be received it, was undoubtedly to raise a presumption that he approved of what his factors had done, so far as their letter informed him. In the absence of anything to rebut that presumption, he must he regarded as having consented to whatever delay had occurred in effecting a sale, even though it-was contrary to his directions. He could not, therefore, hold his factors responsible for the consequences of acts which he had ratified.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McIntosh v. Merchant
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.