Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 Colo. 467 - McCaffrey v. Mitchell

McCaffrey v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
February 2007
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2007 · most notably Gordon v. Benson (1996), Burenheide v. Wall (1955)

2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

8019361940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Burke v. Dulaney · Ware v. Allen · Julius Kessler & Co. v. Parelius · Richardson Drug Co. v. Dunagan · Yentzer v. Thayer

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

  1. ““. .. It is true that ordinarily a note is prima facie evidence of an obligation, enforceable as to its legal import, but when in the hands of the original payee, the way is always open to the maker to prove circumstances showing that the note never was made or delivered with the intention that it should be binding at all events according to its terms, and he may not be foreclosed from showing that the note in effect is no contract at all.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he thoughts and purposes of the maker, not disclosed at the execution of the contract, may not be given to the jury in an attempt to show that the instrument means something other than what is shown on its face.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.