Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 U.S. 560 - Colby v. Reed

Colby v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis

99 U.S. 560 · 1878

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Murphy v. John Hofman Co. (1909), 136 S. Ct. 663 - Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez (2016)

17 federal appellate · 25 state decisions — followed in 11 states

100187818801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Yale v. Saunders · Hart v. Skinner · Rutland & Washington Railroad v. Bank of Middlebury · Ashburn v. Poulter

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

  1. “must adopt the measure prescribed by the common law, except in jurisdictions where a different mode of proceeding is prescribed by statute”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Responsive to the second request, the judge told the jury that where a party demands more than he is entitled to receive, that circumstance alone will not justify the other party in refusing to deliver that part of the property to which the party making the demand is entitled, provided it is distinct, well known, and clearly distinguishable from that to which the demanding party had no right; that if the party demanded $45,000 of the stock when he was only entitled to $32,000 of the same, the defendant could not properly refuse to deliver what the plaintiff was entitled to receive, on the ground that the" demand was excessive. Injustice and inconvenience would flow from any different rule, and, inasmuch as we are all of the opinion that the instruction was correct, it is not deemed necessary to pursue the subject.””
    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.