Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 U.S. 436 - Clark v. Barnard

Clark v. Barnard’s Empirical Analysis

108 U.S. 436 · 1883

Citation profile

1,287
cited by 1,287 later decisions
72
cited 72 times by the Supreme Court
33
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

382 federal appellate · 163 district · 138 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,287 later decisions (72 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Papasan v. Allain (1986)

382 federal appellate · 163 district · 138 state decisions — followed in 33 states

3000188318901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Upton Assignee v. Tribilcock · Bank of Augusta v. Earle · Taylor v. Taintor

Cited together with Edelman v. Jordan · Hans v. State of Louisiana · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon · Ex Parte: Edward T Young

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 1,287 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`a personal privilege which it may waive at pleasure.'”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In the present case the state of Rhode Island appeared in the cause and presented and prosecuted a claim to the fund in controversy, and thereby made itself a party to the litigation to the full extent required for its complete determination. It became an actor as well as a defendant, as by its intervention the proceeding became one in the nature of an interpleader, in which it became necessary to adjudicate the adverse rights of the state and the appellees to the fund, to which both claimed title.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Accordingly, where any penalty or forfeiture is imposed by statute upon the doing or omission of a certain act, there courts of equity will not interfere to mitigate the penalty or forfeiture, if incurred, for it would be in contravention of the direct expression of the legislative will.”
    3 later decisions 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.