Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 U.S. 351 - Cromwell v. County of Sac

Cromwell v. County of Sac’s Empirical Analysis

94 U.S. 351 · 1876

Citation profile

3,515
cited by 3,515 later decisions
158
cited 158 times by the Supreme Court
50
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

1,040 federal appellate · 286 district · 875 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,515 later decisions (158 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Allen v. McCurry (1980), Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979)

1,040 federal appellate · 286 district · 875 state decisions — followed in 50 states

45801876188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Gould v. Evansville and Crawfordsville Rr Co · Burlen v. Shannon · Commander-in-chief · Gardner v. Buckbee

Cited together with Commissioner v. Sunnen · Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp. · Montana v. United States · Allen v. McCurry · Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co.

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 3,515 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.”
    245 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Allegations of an essential character may be omitted in the first declaration and be supplied in the second, in which event the judgment on demurrer in the first suit is not a bar to the second, for the reason that the merits of the cause as disclosed in the second declaration were not heard and decided in the first action. Gilman v. Rives, 10 Pet. 298 , 9 L. Ed. 432 ; Richardson v. Barton, 24 How. 188 , 16 L. Ed. 625 ; Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 90 , 19 L. Ed. 42 .” Bissell v. Spring Valley Township, 124 U. S. 225 , 8 Sup. Ct. 495 , 31 L. Ed. 411 ; City of North Muskegon v. Clark, 62 Fed. 694 , 10 C. C. A. 591 ; Spicer v. United States, 5 Ct. Cl. 34 ; O’Hara v. Parker, 27 Or. 156 , 39 Pac. 1004 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““That the bonds were void as against the county in the hands of parties who did not acquire them before maturity and give value for them, and that the plaintiff, not having proved that he gave such value, was not entitled to recover upon the coupons. Whatever illegality or fraud there was in the issue and delivery to the contractor of the bonds affected equally the coupons for interest attached to them. The finding and judgment upon the invalidity of the bonds, as against the county, must be held to estop the plaintiff here from averring to the contrary. ””
    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.