Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 107 U.S. 69 - Cushing v. Laird

Cushing v. Laird’s Empirical Analysis

107 U.S. 69 · 1882

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Swift & Co. Packers v. Compania Colombiana Del Caribe, S. A. (1950), Hobbs v. McLean (1886)

55 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

280188218901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 The Siren · The Apollon · Atkins v. The Disintegrating Company · The Amiable Isabella · Rose v. Himely

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

  1. “In a court of admiralty, as in a court of common law, a process of foreign attachment is auxiliary and incidental to the principal cause. Second Rule of Practice in Admiralty, 3 How. iii. Manro v. Almeida, 10 Wheat. 473 (6 L.Ed. 369); Atkins v. The Disintegrating Company, 18 Wall. 272 (21 L.Ed. 841). Neither the principal defendant nor the garnishees can appeal until after a final decree against them. The first decree against these garnishees, ascertaining their liability, was interlocutory only, and, if the libellants had ultimately failed to recover judgment against the principal defendant and execution against the garnishees, would have been of no avail to the libellants, and of no effect against the garnishees. The appeal of the garnishees from this interlocutory order of the District Court was therefore rightly dismissed by the Circuit Court, and the order of dismissal must be affirmed.”
    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.