Collins v. Streitz’s Empirical Analysis
95 F.2d 430 · 1938
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 1985
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
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 Gunning v. Cooley · George Whitman v. National Bank of Oxford · Hunnicutt v. Peyton · Kelly v. Calhoun · Younge v. Guilbeau
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Instruments like this should be construed, if it can be reasonably done, ut res magis valeat quam pereat. It should be the aim of courts, in cases like this, to preserve and not to destroy. Sir Matthew Hale said they should be astute to find means to make acts effectual, according to the honest intent of the parties, Roe v. Tranmarr, Willes, 682.” Kelly v. Calhoun, 1877, 95 U.S. 710, 713-714 , 24 L.Ed. 544 . (Emphasis added.) The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has quoted this statement with approval and applied it in construing an Arizona acknowledgment statute: Collins v. Streitz, 9 Cir., 1938, 95 F.2d 430, 435 , certiorari denied 305 U.S. 608 , 59 S.Ct. 67 , 83 L.Ed. 387 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the opponent fails to object to the admission of the [executed] document, this is, of course, on general principles * * * a waiver as to the need of any evidence authenticating its genuineness ; that this waiver is commonly held to extend to the fact of authority of an agent purporting to sign the document for a principal, but not as to the legal sufficiency of the instrument for any purpose.””
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.