United States v. Van Auken’s Empirical Analysis
96 U.S. 366 · 1877
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2009 · most notably United States v. Mertine (1946), 47 F. Supp. 395 - United States v. Empire Hat & Cap Mfg. Co. (1942)
5 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 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.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here the note is for ‘goods’ to be paid at the store of the furnace company It is not payable in money, but in goods, and in goods only. No money could be demanded upon it. It is not solvable in that medium. Watson v. McNairy, 1 Bibb, 356 . The sum of ‘fifty’ cents is named, but merely as the limit of the value in goods demandable and to be paid upon the presentation of the note. Its mention was for no other purpose, and has no other effect. In the view of the law, the note is as if it called for so many pounds, yards, or quarts of a specific article.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Aldrich
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.