Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 U.S. 297 - Pendleton County v. Amy

Pendleton County v. Amy’s Empirical Analysis

80 U.S. 297 · 1871

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Norton v. Shelby County (1886), Carroll County v. Smith (1884)

13 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

160187118801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Moran et al. v. The Commissioners of Miami County · Philip v. Nock

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

  1. ““A county issuing bonds to a railroad company in payment of stock in the road, which subscription the county was authorized by legislative enactment to make and pay for by the issue of the bonds only after certain things directed had been performed, may be estopped against asserting that the conditions attached to a grant of the power were not fulfilled. Where the issue of bonds without such previous fulfillment would be a misdemeanor, by the county officers, it is to be presumed, though perhaps not conclusively, that the conditions were fulfilled. And an estoppel would take place where the county had received the proper amount of stock for which the bonds were issued, had held it for 17 years, and was actually enjoying it at the time when pleading want of authority to subscribe.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.