Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

strictissimi juris

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 296 U.S. 526 - Chapman v. Hoage · 1936Most cited · 173 citing opinions

the obligation of a voluntary surety is so far regarded as strictissimi juris as to be released upon a showing, without more, that the principal obligation has been modified or surrendered without the consent of the surety

How the Supreme Court has restated “strictissimi juris”

185818601880190019201936 most cited: 296 U.S. 526 - Chapman v. Hoage (1936)
first stateddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “strictissimi juris,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “strictissimi juris”

1850190019502000202044

Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “strictissimi juris” — 315 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 3 definitions, chronological · 1858–1936

  1. 1858·62 U.S. 66 - Leggett v. Humphreys[p8]· cited 53×
    ORIGINAL

    sureties are never held responsible beyond the clear and absolute terms and meaning of their undertakings. Presumptions or equities are never allowed to enlarge or in any degree to change their legal obligations.

  2. 1864·69 U.S. 219 - Smith v. United States[p19]· cited 90×

    Liability of a surety is always strictissimi juris, and cannot be extended by construction; a surety can never be bound beyond the scope of his engagement.