Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 U.S. 406 - Scudder v. Union National Bank

Scudder v. Union National Bank’s Empirical Analysis

91 U.S. 406 · 1875

Citation profile

409
cited by 409 later decisions
23
cited 23 times by the Supreme Court
34
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

116 federal appellate · 41 district · 145 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 409 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green (1946), Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States (1899)

116 federal appellate · 41 district · 145 state decisions — followed in 34 states

610187518801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Andrews v. Pond · Townsley v. Sumrall · Morgan v. Curtenius · Pomeroy v. Ainsworth

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

  1. ““Matters bearing upon the execution, the interpretation, and the validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the contract is made. Matters connected with its performance are regulated by the law prevailing at the place of performance. Matters respecting the remedy, such as the bringing of suits, admissibility of evidence, statutes of limitation, depend upon the law of the place where the suit is brought.””
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is a sound principle of morality, which is sustained by well-considered decisions, that one who promises another, either in writing or by parol, that he will accept a particular bill of exchange, and thereby induces him to advance his money upon such bill, in reliance upon his promise, shall be held to make good his promise. The party advances his money upon an original promise, upon a valuable consideration; and the promisor is, upon principle, bound to carry out his undertaking. Whether it shall be held to be an acceptance, or whether he shall be subjected in damages for a breach of his promise to accept, or whether he shall be held to be estopped from impeach-iug his word, is a matter of form merely. The result in either event is to compel the promisor to pay the amount of the bill, with interest””
    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.