Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 NY 62 - Moses v. . McDivitt

Moses v. . McDivitt’s Empirical Analysis

1882

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
5
states following
January 2010
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably Cordes & Co. Financial Services v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. (2007), Fairchild Hiller Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1971)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 32 state decisions

8018821890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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. Latson · Van Rensselaer v. Sheriff of Onondaga · People v. Walbridge

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

  1. “discounting or purchasing bonds and mortgages and notes, or other choses in action, either for investment or for profit, or for the protection of other interests, and such purchase is not made illegal by the existence of the intent ... at the time of the purchase, which must always exist in the case of such purchases, to bring suit upon them if necessary for their collection.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he object of the statute .. . was to prevent attorneys, etc., from purchasing things in action for the purpose of obtaining costs by the prosecution thereof, and it was not intended to prevent a purchase for the purpose of protecting some other right of the assignee.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “is not made illegal by the existence of the intent on [the purchaser's] part at the time of the purchase, which must always exist in the case of such purchases, to bring suit upon them if necessary for their collection.”
    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.