Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 U.S. 247 - Watt v. Starke

Watt v. Starke’s Empirical Analysis

101 U.S. 247 · 1879

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
July 1941
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1941 · most notably Van Iderstine v. National Discount Co. (1913), Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co. (1889)

19 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

13018791880189019001910192019301940decided

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 Basey v. Gallagher · Johnson v. Harmon · Robert Brockett et al. v. William Brockett et al.

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

  1. ““Whore a court of chancery suspends proceedings in a cause in order to allow parties to bring an action at law to try the legal title, it does not assume to interfere with the course of proceedings in the court of law, and a motion for a new trial must be made to that court; hut, when it directs an issue to be tried at law, a motion must be made to the court of chancery.””
    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.