Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 U.S. 101 - Neblett v. Macfarland

Neblett v. Macfarland’s Empirical Analysis

92 U.S. 101 · 1875

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
November 1991
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 13 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1991 · most notably Shappirio v. Goldberg (1904), Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United States (1927)

23 federal appellate · 13 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 23 states

1901875188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Veazie v. Williams · Gatling v. Newell

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

  1. “The court proceeds on the principle, that, as the transaction ought never to have taken place, the parties are to be placed as far as possible in the situation in which they would have stood if there had never been any such transaction.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A party seeking to set aside a sale of shares is not bound to pay calls on them to prevent forfeiture after filing the bill; * * the party, in substance, redelivering the bond as a condition of obtaining such reconveyance, it would seem that a defense of this character could not be a good one. But of this the appellant must take his chance. If the bond has become thus impaired, it is no worse than the loss of a perishable article, or the forfeiture of shares during the litigation. These circumstances do not alter the rule of law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ Parties engaged in a fraudulent attempt to obtaina neighbor’s property are not the object of the special solicitude of the courts. If they are caught in their own foils, and are themselves the sufferers, it is a legitimate consequence of their violation of the rules of law and morality. Those who violate these laws must suffer the penalty.””
    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.