Walker v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis
104 U.S. 245 · 1881
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1971 · most notably Swift Company v. United States (1905), Richmond v. Irons (1887)
7 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 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.
Relationships
Relies on Sheldon v. Sill · Christmas v. Russell · Sawyer v. Noble · Emans v. Emans
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By ‘multifariousne.ss’ is meant the improperly joining in one bill distinct and independent matters, and thereby confounding them, as for example, the uniting in one bill of several matters, perfectly distinct and unconnected, against one defendant, or the demand of several matters, of a distinct and independent nature, against several defendants in the same bill.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reference to the judgment in favor of Chester, on which, as his assignee, Whittemore asks relief, it is urged as ground of demurrer, that Chester being a citizen of the same State with Stewart, his assignee is incapable of -prosecuting this suit in a Federal court. It was brought in 1876, and the question here raised must be decided by a construction of the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat. 170 . . . . That judgment is, then, the foundation of his suit in the Circuit Court. It is a cause of action which he holds by assignment from a party who cannot sue in that court. Without this cause of action he has no standing in court, and has no right to ask the court to inquiré into the other matters alleged in the bill. It is as much the foundatioh of his right to bring the present suit as if it were -a bond and mortgage on which he was asking a decree of foreclosure. See Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441 . . . . The Circuit Court, if the judgment of Chester had been there recovered, might have jurisdiction of the case to remove obstructions to the enforcement of its own judgment, no matter who for the time being was its owner. But where a party comes for the first time in a court of the United States to obtain its aid in enforcing the judgment of a state court, he must have a case on which the former court can entertain original jurisdiction. Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor shall any Circuit or District court have cognizance of any suit founded on contract in favor of an assignee, unless a suit might have been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon - if no assigmnent had been made, except in cases of promissory notes negotiable by the law merchant and bills of exchange.”
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.