Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 U.S. 673 - Casey v. Galli

Casey v. Galli’s Empirical Analysis

94 U.S. 673 · 1876

Citation profile

381
cited by 381 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

102 federal appellate · 14 district · 140 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 381 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably Union Bridge Company v. United States (1907), Hale v. Allinson (1903)

102 federal appellate · 14 district · 140 state decisions — followed in 29 states

1520187618801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Kennedy v. Gibson · United States Tr. Co. of New York v. . U.S. Fire Ins. Co. · Ryan v. Koch · Pike v. Wassell

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

  1. “[W]here a party has contracted with a corporation and is sued upon the contract, [that party] is [not] permitted to deny the existence or the legal validity of such corporation. To hold otherwise would be contrary to the plainest principles of reason and of good faith, and involve a mockery of justice. Parties must take the consequences of the position they assume.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is there said that the amount to he paid rests in the judgment and discretion of the comptroller; that his determination cannot be controverted by the stockholders in suits against them.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is * * * sufficient * • * that the comptroller has ordered that each stockholder shall pay to the receiver the par of his stock. This order cannot be controverted in a suit against the stockholder. It is conclusive upon him, and makes it his duty to pay (citing Kennedy v. Gibson, 8 Wall. 498 [ 19 L. Ed. 476 ]).””
    2 later decisions 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.