Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 10 U.S. 148 - Massie v. Watts

Massie v. Watts’s Empirical Analysis

10 U.S. 148 · 1810

Citation profile

265
cited by 265 later decisions
29
cited 29 times by the Supreme Court
31
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

60 federal appellate · 14 district · 107 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 265 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Pennoyer v. Neff (1877), Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson (1912)

60 federal appellate · 14 district · 107 state decisions — followed in 31 states

3801810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Auld v. Norwood

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

  1. “[This court is of opinion that, in a case of fraud, of trust, or of contract, the jurisdiction of a court of chancery is sustainable wherever the person be found, although lands not within the jurisdiction of that court may be affected by the decree.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'' 'When the defendant is .liable, either in consequence of a contract or as trustee or as holder of a legal title acquired by a species of mala tides practiced on the plaintiff, the principles of equity give a court jurisdiction wherever the person may be found; and the circumstance that a question of title may be involved in the inquiry, and may even constitute the essential point on which the case depends, does not seem sufficient to arrest the jurisdiction. * * * In case of fraud, of trust or of contract, the jurisdiction of a court of chancery is sustainable wherever the person is found, .although lands not within the jurisdiction may be affected by the decree.’ ’’”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the United States is limited to controversies between citizens of different states, except in certain cases, and to the district in .which it sits. In this case we shall consider the question of jurisdiction in .regard to the district only. In all cases of contract suit may be brought in the Circuit Court where the defendant may be found. If sued out of the district in which he lives, under the decisions he may object; but this is a privilege which he mas- waive. Wherever the jurisdiction of the person will enable the Circuit Court to give effect to its judgment or decree, jurisdiction may be exercised. But wherever the subject-matter in controversy is local, and lies 'beyond the limit of the district, no jurisdiction attaches to the Circuit Court sitting within it An action of ejectment cannot be maintained in the district of Michigan for land in any other district. Nor . can an action of trespass quare clausum fregit be prosecuted where the act complained of was not done in the. district.” Why? Because “both of these actions are local in their character, and must be prosecuted where the process of the court can reach the locus in quo.””
    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.