Embry v. Palmer’s Empirical Analysis
107 U.S. 3 · 1882
Citation profile
105 federal appellate · 11 district · 127 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 362 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2020 · most notably Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. (1944), Stoll v. Gottlieb (1938)
105 federal appellate · 11 district · 127 state decisions — followed in 31 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 STANTON v. Embrey, Administrator · William M'Elmoyle for the Use of Isaac Bailey v. John J Cohen · Brown v. County of Buena Vista · The Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria v. Hodgson
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 362 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he judgments of the courts of the United States have invariably been recognized as upon the same footing, so far as concerns the obligation created by them, with domestic judgments of the states, wherever rendered and whereever [sic] sought to be enforced.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"* * * Clearly, his acceptance of a share in the special fund did not operate as a waiver of his appeal from the other part of the decree disposing of the general fund. There is nothing inconsistent in his action in accepting the amount awarded to him from the special fund, and appealing from the refusal of the court to award him the general fund. As was said by this court in Embry v. Palmer, 107 U.S. 3, 8 , 2 S.Ct. 25 , 27 L.Ed. 346 : `No waiver or release of errors, operating as a bar to the further prosecution of an appeal or writ of error, can be implied except from conduct which is inconsistent with the claim of a right to reverse the judgment or decree which it is sought to bring into review. If the release is not expressed, it can arise only upon the principle of an estoppel. The present is not such a case. The amount awarded, paid, and accepted constitutes no part of what is in controversy. Its acceptance by the plaintiff in error cannot be construed into an admission that the decree he seeks to reverse is not erroneous."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“They are record evidences of a debt or judgment of record, to be contested only in such way as judgments of record may be, and consequently are conclusive upon the defendant in every state, except for such causes as would be sufficient to set aside the judgment in the courts of the state in which it was rendered. The question then arises, what causes would have been sufficient in the District of Columbia according to the law there in force, to have authorized its courts to set aside the judgment recovered there by Embry against Stanton Palmer?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dyer v. Johnson
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.