Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 U.S. 188 - Schwed v. Smith

Schwed v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

106 U.S. 188 · 1882

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 1944
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1944 · most notably Davis v. Schwartz (1895), Stewart v. Dunham (1885)

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

1301882189019001910192019301940decided

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 Seaver v. Bigelows

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

  1. “If the decree is several as to the creditors, it is difficult to see why it is not as to their adversaries. The theory is, that, although the proceeding is in form but one suit, its legal effect is the same as though separate suits had been begun on each of the separate causes of action.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is impossible to distinguish this case in principle from Seaver v. Bigelows, 5 Wall. 208 .”
    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.