Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 U.S. 383 - Barnard v. Kellogg

Barnard v. Kellogg’s Empirical Analysis

77 U.S. 383 · 1870

Citation profile

181
cited by 181 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
30
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 18 district · 77 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 181 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Grace v. American Central Insurance (1883), Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton (1884)

38 federal appellate · 18 district · 77 state decisions — followed in 30 states

340187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ducat v. Chicago · Snowden v. Warder

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

  1. ““The proper office of a custom or usage in trade is to ascertain and explain the meaning and intention of the parties to a contract, whether written or in parol, which could not be done without the aid of this extrinsic evidence. It does not go beyond this, and is used as a mode of interpretation on the theory that the parties knew of its existence, and contracted with reference to it. It is often employed to explain words or phrases in a contract of doubtful signification, or which may be understood in different senses, according to the subject-matter to which they are applied. But if it b.e inconsistent with the contract, or expressly or by necessary implication contradicts it, it cannot be received in evidence to affect it. ‘Usage,’ says Lord Lyndhurst, ‘may be admissible to explain what is doubtful. It is never admissible to contradict what is plain.’ And it is well settled that usage cannot be allowed to subvert the settled rules of law.””
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The parties negotiated on the basis of caveat emptor, and contracted accordingly.”
    1 later decision 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.