Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 CAL 476 - Ex parte Maier

Ex parte Maier’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

132
cited by 132 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 11 district · 102 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 132 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2011 · most notably Geer v. State of Connecticut (1896), Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel (1928)

4 federal appellate · 11 district · 102 state decisions — followed in 24 states

3101894190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Leisy v. Hardin · Bowman v. Chicago N W Ry Co · Railroad Company v. Husen · Samuel Thurlow v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington Railroad

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

  1. ““ ‘The wild game within a state belongs to the people in their collective, sovereign capacity; it is not the subject of private ownership, except in so far as the people may elect to make it so; and they may, if they see fit, absolutely prohibit the taking of it, or any traffic or commerce in it, if deemed necessary for its protection or preservation, or the public good.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is said that it would be a strong thing for the Legislature of the United Kingdom to interfere with the rights of foreigners to kill foreign birds, but it may well be that the true and only mode of protecting British wild fowl from indiscriminate slaughter, as well as of protecting other British interests, is by interfering indirectly with the proceedings of foreign persons. The object is to prevent British wild fowl from being improperly killed and sold under pretense of their being imported from abroad.””
    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.