Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 U.S. 328 - Pullman v. Upton

Pullman v. Upton’s Empirical Analysis

96 U.S. 328 · 1877

Citation profile

119
cited by 119 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
May 2000
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 7 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 119 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2000 · most notably Hawkins v. Glenn (1889), Handley v. Stutz (1891)

35 federal appellate · 7 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 23 states

33018771880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Sanger v. Upton · United States Tr. Co. of New York v. . U.S. Fire Ins. Co. · The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. The Town of Pawlet and Ozias Clarke · Wheelock v. Kost

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

  1. “•‘The creditors of Hie bankrupt company are entitled to the whole of the capital of the bankrupt as a fund for the payment of the debts due them. This they cannot have if the transferee of the shares is not responsible for whatever remains unpaid upon his shares; for by the transfer on the books of the corporation the former owner is discharged.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It seems to have been thought a matter of some moment that the plaintiff, so far as appeared on the trial, had not examined the stock ledger before he gave credit to the company. But there are other ways in which he may have learned that the defendants were stockholders, and, besides, 1 do not see that the liability of the stockholder has been made to depend on the fact that the creditor knew he could be reached. * * * As the defendants were in fact stockholders, they must answer to the plaintiff, although he may not have known at the time he trusted the company that the defendants could be reached.””
    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.