Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 U.S. 443 - Scott v. United States

Scott v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

79 U.S. 443 · 1870

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Hume v. United States (1889), Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. (1965)

24 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

80187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Baldwin v. Mildeberger

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

  1. “If a contract be unreasonable and unconscionable, but not void for fraud, a court of law will give to the party who sues for its breach damages, not according to its letter, but only such as he is equitably entitled to.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In cases like this it is the duty of the court to assume the standpoint occupied by the parties when the contract was made, to let in the light of the surrounding circumstances, to see as the parties saw, and to think as they must have thought in assenting to the stipulations by which they are bound. This process is always effective. When the terms employed are doubtful or obscure, there is no surer guide to their intent and meaning.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Where parties intend to contract by parol, and there is a misunderstanding as. to the terms, neither is bound, because their minds have not met. Where there is a written contract and a like misunderstanding is developed, a court of equity will refuse to execute it. If a contract be unreasonable and unconscionable, but not void for fraud, a court of law will give to the party who sues*for its breach damages, not according to its letter but only such as he is equitably entitled to. James v. Morgan, 1 Lev. 111; Thornborow v. Whitacre, 2 Ld. Raym. 1164; Baxter v. Wales, 12 Mass. 365 .”
    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.