Distilled Spirits’s Empirical Analysis
78 U.S. 356 · 1870
Citation profile
68 federal appellate · 16 district · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 225 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2007 · most notably Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi (1934), American Surety Co of New York v. Pauly (1898)
68 federal appellate · 16 district · 77 state decisions — followed in 31 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee · Keenan v. Missouri State Mutual Insurance
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 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The doctrine now sec-ms to be established that if the agent, at the time of effecting a purchase, has knowledge of any prior lien, trust or fraud, affecting the property, no matter when he acquired such knowledge, his principal is affected thereby. If he acquire the knowledge when he effects the purchase, no question can arise as to his having it at that time; if he acquired it previous to the purchase, the presumption that he still retains it, and has it present to his mind, will depend on the lapse of time and other circumstances. Knowledge communicated to the principal himself he is hound to recollect, hut he is not hound by knowledge communicated to his agent, unless it is nresent to the agent’s mind at the timé of effecting the purchase. Clear and satisfactory proof that it was so present seems to be the only restriction required by the English rule as now understood.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It needs no learned examination of the doctrine of confusion or mixture of goods to make it apparent that if certain spirits belonging to the government by forfeiture are voluntarily mixed with other spirits belonging to the same party, and passed through the process of rectification in leaches, he cannot thereby deprive the government of its property; and, if the government only claims its fair proportion of the rectified spirits, he certainly cannot complain of injustice. The only result of applying the doctrine of confusion of goods would be to forfeit the entire mixture.” •”
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.