Twin-Lick Oil Company v. Marbury’s Empirical Analysis
91 U.S. 587 · 1875
Citation profile
205 federal appellate · 42 district · 242 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 653 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Pepper v. Litton (1939), Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford (1935)
205 federal appellate · 42 district · 242 state decisions — followed in 42 states
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 Badger v. Badger · Watts v. Territory of Washington · Drury v. Cross · Koehler v. The Black River Falls Iron Company
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 653 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A director of a corporation is not prohibited from lending it moneys when they are needed for its benefit, and the transaction is open, and otherwise free from blame; nor is his subsequent purchase of its property at a fair public sale by a trustee, under a deed of trust executed to secure the payment of them, invalid. “The right of a corporation to avoid the sale of its property by reason of the fiduciary relations of the purchaser must be exercised within a reasonable time after the facts connected therewith are made known, or can by due diligence be ascertained. As the courts have never prescribed any specific period as applicable to every case like the statute of limitations, the determination as to what constitutes a reasonable time in any particular case must be arrived at by a consideration of all its elements which affect that question.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Property worth thousands to-day is worth nothing to-morrow; and that which would to-day sell for $1,000 at its fair value may, by the natural changes of a week or the energy and courage of desperate enterprise, in the same time be made to yield that much every day. The injustice, therefore, is obvious, of permitting one holding the right to assert an ownership in surtí property to voluntarily await the event, and then decide, when the danger which is over 1ms been at the risk of another, to come in and share the profit.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘•That a director of a joint-stock corporation occupies one of those fiduciary relations where his dealings with the subject-matter of his trust or agency, and with the beneficiary or party whose interest is confided to his care, is viewed with jealousy by the courts, and may be set aside on slight grounds, is a doctrine founded on the soundest morality, * * * which has received the clearest recognition in this court””
4 later decisions 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.