Commissioners of Marion County v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

116 federal appellate · 15 district · 83 state decisions

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

1. “"Before the evidence is left to the jury, there is or may be in every case a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the burden of proof is imposed.” Commissioners v. Clark, 94 U. S. 278 , 284, 24 L. Ed. 59 , Cl.”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Eason · Southern Pac. Co. v. Johnson

2. ““But it is a very different matter when it is proposed to impeach the title of a holder for value, by proof of any facts and circumstances outside of the instrument itself. He is then to be affected, if at all, by what has occurred between other parties, and he may well claim an exemption from any consequences flowing from their acts, unless it be first shown that he had knowledge of such facts and circumstances at the time the transfer was made. Nothing less than proof of knowledge of such facts and circumstances can meet the exigencies of such a defense; else the proposition as stated is not true, that a party who acquires commercial paper in the usual course of business, for value and without notice of any defect in the title, may hold it free of all equities between the antecedent parties to the instrument.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Young v. Lowry

3. ““Where the theory that the plaintiff paid value for the instrument depends solely upon the prima facie presumption .arising from the possession of the instrument, the defendant may, if the pleadings admit of such a defense, prove that the instrument originated in illegality and fraud; and the rule is, if he establish such a defense, that a presumption arises that the subsequent holder gave no value for it. And it is also true that such a presumption will support a plea that the holder is a holder without consideration, unless the presumption is rebutted by proof that the plaintiff paid value for the instrument, in which event the plaintiff is still entitled to recover.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. v. City of Huron