Jones v. Habersham’s Empirical Analysis
107 U.S. 174 · 1882
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 11 district · 164 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 294 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1983 · most notably Evans v. Newton (1966), Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890)
62 federal appellate · 11 district · 164 state decisions — followed in 33 states
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 Francois Fenelon v. The Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of Philadelphia · United States v. Fox · Ould v. Washington Hospital for Foundlings · William Fontain Administrator of Frederick Kohne Deceased v. William Ravenel
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 294 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But there are two conclusive answers to this argument: (1) Restrictions imposed by the charter of a corporation upon the amount of property that it may hold cannot be taken advantage of collaterally by private persons, but only in a direct proceeding by the state which created it. Runyan v. Coster, 14 Pet. 122 , 131 [ 10 L. Ed. 382 ]; Smith v. Sheeley, 12 Wall. 358 , 361 [ 20 L. Ed. 430 ]; Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Oil. (N. Y.) 633, 758; De Camp v. Dobbins, 29 N. J. Eq. 36 ; Davis v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 131 Mass. 258 , 273 [ 41 Am. Rep. 221 ].””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in case of necessity arising from unforeseen change of circumstances”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““According to the uniform course of the decisions of this court, the validity of this devise as against the heirs at law, depend upon the law in the state in which the lands lie, and the validity of the bequest as against the next of kin, upon the law of the state in which the testatrix had her domicile. Vidal v. Girard, 2 How. 127 [ 11 L. Ed. 205 ]; Wheeler v. Smith, 9 How. 55 [ 13 L. Ed. 44 ]; McDonough v. Murdock, 15 How. 367 [ 14 L. Ed. 732 ]; Fontain v. Ravenel, 17 How. 369 [ 15 L. Ed. 80 ]; Perin v. Carey, 24 How. 465 [ 16 L. Ed. 701 ]; Lorings v. Marsh, 6 Wall. 337 [ 18 L. Ed. 802 ]; U. S. v. Fox, 94 U. S. 362 [ 24 L. Ed. 192 ]; Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163 [ 2 Sup. Ct. 327 , 27 L. Ed. 397 ]; Kain v. Gibboney, 101 U. S. 362 [ 25 L. Ed. 813 ].””
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.