Utley v. Donaldson’s Empirical Analysis
94 U.S. 29 · 1876
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 6 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably Nebbia v. People of State of New York (1934), Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley (1896)
28 federal appellate · 6 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 15 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 William Tayloe v. The Merchants' Fire Insurance Company of Baltimore · Dair v. United States · Reed v. . Randall · Murray v. . Harway
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There can be no contract without the mutual assent of the parties. This is vital to its existence. There can be none where it is wanting. * * * Where there is a misunderstanding as to anything material, the requisite mutuality of assent as to such thing is wanting; consequently, the supposed contract does not exist.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Every intendment is to be made against tbe construction of a contract under which it would operate as a snare.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendant bought merchandise of the plaintiff, and it was agreed that it should be paid for by the note of a third person payable to the defendant, to be by him indorsed to the plaintiff. After the goods were delivered the note was tendered, indorsed without recourse. The plaintiff refused to receive it, insisting that the agreement was that the note should be indorsed without this qualification, and thereupon brought the suit. The court left it to the jury to find whether there was a misunderstanding between the parties as to the manner of the indorsement. The jury so found; and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as if there had been nothing said about the note, there being no assent of the two minds as was necessary to make a contract in relation to it.””
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.