Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 U.S. 192 - The Lulu

The Lulu’s Empirical Analysis

77 U.S. 192 · 1869

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 36 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co. (1920), The J. E. Rumbell (1893)

31 federal appellate · 36 district · 4 state decisions

2901869187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

  1. ““It was said, In the leading case on the subject In this country, that ‘every •one must conduct himself honestly in respect to the antecedent parties when he takes negotiable paper, in order to acquire a title which will shield him against prior equities. While he is not obliged to make inquiries, he must not willfully shut his eyes to the means of knowledge which he knows are at hand, * * * for the reason that such conduct, whether equivalent to notice or not, would be plenary evidence of bad faith.’ ””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Where it appears that the repairs and supplies were necessary to enable the vessel to proceed on her voyage, and that they were made and furnished in good faith, the presumption is that the vessel, as well as the master and owners, is responsible to those who made the repairs and furnished the supplies, unless it appears that the master had funds on hand, or at his command, which he ought to have applied to the accomplishment of those objects, and that they knew that such was the fact, or that such facts and circumstances were known to them as were sufficient to put them upon inquiry, and to show that, if they had used due diligence in that behalf, they might have ascertained that the master, under the rules of the maritime law, had no authority to contract for the repairs and supplies on the credit of the vessel.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “They will reject, undoubtedly, all unwarranted charges; but upon proof that the furnishing [of supplies and materials] was in good faith, on the order of the master, and really necessary, or honestly and reasonably believed by the furnisher to be necessary for the ship while lying in port, or to fit her for an intended voyage, the lien will be supported; unless it is made to appear affirmatively that the credit to the ship was unnecessary, either by reason of the master having funds in his possession applicable to the expenses incui’red, or credit of his own or of his owners, upon which funds could be raised by the use of reasonable diligence ; and that the material man knew, or could, by proper inquiry, have readily informed himself of the facts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. The Kate

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.