CENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING COMPANY OF GEORGIA v. PETTUS & Others

1885-01-05 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

1What it rests on

7Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

+1 earlier19531 judgments14 years silent19671 judgments19701 judgments19731 judgments19751 judgments21 years silent19961 judgments

7 judgments have relied on it, across 1939–1996

first 1939 · last 1996 · busiest 1939 (1 judgments)

1996-08-26Edward O. GOODRICH, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. E.F. HUTTON GROUP, INC., and E.F. Hutton Group & Company, Inc., Defendants Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1975-05-12Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1973-05-21HALL Et Al. v. COLESupreme Court of the United States 1970-01-26MILLS Et Al. v. ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1967-05-08FLEISCHMANN DISTILLING CORP. Et Al. v. MAIER BREWING CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1953-03-27Bertha E. Maurer, vs. International Re-Insurance Corporation, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of Delaware. Appeal of William Prickett From the Order of the Chancellor Dated January 27, 1953, on the Petition of William Prickett for an Allowance Out of the Defendant’s Estate. AND Cross-Appeal of Arthur G. Logan and William D. Denney, Receivers of International Re-Insurance Corporation, From a Part of the Order of the Chancellor of the State of Delaware Dated January 27, 1953, on the Petition of William Prickett for an Allowance Out of the Receivership EstateSupreme Court of Delaware 1939-04-24SPRAGUE v. TICONIC NATIONAL BANK Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

What it rests on

1882-05-18Trustees v. GreenoughSupreme Court of the United States

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.