Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 U.S. 604 - Bailey v. Railroad Co.

Bailey v. Railroad Co.’s Empirical Analysis

89 U.S. 604 · 1874

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
March 1956
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1956 · most notably Eisner v. Macomber (1920), Towne v. Eisner (1918)

22 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions

200187418801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Connoyer v. Schaeffer

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

  1. ““As a general rale, stock dividends, even when they represent net earnings, become at once a part of the capital of the company” and “such a dividend, if earned and declared, necessarily increases the value of the old stock, if new stock is not issued, and in that mode reaches substantially the same result".””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Mere irregularities may be passed over without remark, as the suit is an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiffs to recover back money which they paid to the collector, and the burden is upon them to show that the defendant ex sequo et bono is bound to refund the amount which they paid. Indebitatus assumpsit is founded upon what the law terms an implied promise on the part of the defendant to pay what in good conscience he is bound to pay to the plaintiff. Where the case shows that it is the duty of the defendant to pay. the law imputes a promise to fulfill that obligation, but the law never implies a promise to pay unless some duty creates such an obligation, and more especially it never implies a promise to do an act contrary to duty or contrary to law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “as part of the earnings, profits, income or gains of such company, and all profits of such company carried -to the account of any fund, or used for construction, shall be subject to and pay' a tax of five per centum on the amount of all such”
    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.