Stokes v. . Foote’s Empirical Analysis
1902
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1956 · most notably Selig v. Hamilton (1914), Cook v. . Conners (1915)
2 federal appellate · 17 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedStokes v. Stokes
Relationships
Relies on Reynolds v. Stockton · Embury v. . Conner · Pray v. . Hegeman · 5 E.H. Smith 122 - Reich v. . Cochran · House v. . Lockwood
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.
““It is well settled, however, that ‘although a decree in express terms purports to affirm a particular fact, or rule of law, yet if such fact or rule of law was immaterial to the issue, and the controversy did not turn upon it, the decree will not conclude the parties thereto.’ Woodgate v. Fleet, 44 N. Y. 1 , 13; Stannard v. Hubbell, 123 N. Y. 520 , 25 N. E. 1084 ; House v. Lockwood, 137 N. Y. 259 , 33 N. E. 595 ; Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U. S. 254 , 11 Sup. Ct. 773 , 35 L. Ed. 464 ; Packet Co. v. Sickels, 5 Wall. 592 , 18 L. Ed. 550 ; Jackson v. Wood, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 37 , and Wood v. Jackson, 8 Wend. 10 , 22 Am. Dec. 603 ; Sweet v. Tuttle, 14 N. Y. 465 ; Campbell v. Consalus, 25 N. Y. 613 ; People ex rel. Reilly v. Johnson, 38 N. Y. 63 , 97 Am. Dec. 770 ; Hymes v. Estey, 116 N. Y. 501 , 509, 22 N. E. 1087 , 15 Am. St. Rep. 421 ; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41 , 25 N. E. 292 , 19 Am. St Rep. 470 ; Bigelow on Estoppel, 152; Duchess of Kingston’s Case, Everest & Strode, 410. Lord Chief Justice De Gray said in the case last cited: ‘That neither the judgment of a concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction is evidence of any matter which came collaterally in question, though within the jurisdiction, or of any matter incidentally cognizable, or of any matter to be inferred by argument from the judgment.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Mosier
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.