Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 U.S. 124 - County of Calhoun v. American Emigrant Co.

County of Calhoun v. American Emigrant Co.’s Empirical Analysis

93 U.S. 124 · 1876

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
June 1976
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1976 · most notably United States v. Schurz (1880), Young v. Township of Clarendon (1889)

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 17 states

12018761880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Justices v. Murray · Jackson ex dem. Russell v. Rowland · Frost v. Beekman · Beekman v. Frost

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

  1. ““Beyond doubt, the deed of the lands was delivered to the clerk of the respondents as an escrow, and subject to the condition that it should not be delivered to the grantees until they gave a mortgage to secure the full performance of the agreement under which the deed was executed; but it is equally clear that the condition required tó be fulfilled before the delivery could be made was never performed, and the rule is established by repeated decisions that, where a deed is delivered as an escrow, nothing passes by the deed unless the condition is performed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Other suggestions failing, the respondents contend that the agreement not to tax the land before the conveyance was made _ is without authority of law and is null and void; but the court here is not able to concur in that proposition, as the lands were held by the county in their proprietary right, and as such were as much subject to bargain and sale as lands held by an individual.””
    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.