Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 U.S. 258 - United States v. Walker

United States v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

109 U.S. 258 · 1883

Citation profile

191
cited by 191 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

53 federal appellate · 8 district · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 191 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa (2010), Swift & Co. v. United States (1928)

53 federal appellate · 8 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 20 states

250188318901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Ex parte Lange · Windsor v. McVeigh · Ennis v. Smith · Cornett v. Williams

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

  1. “a decree which is not within the powers granted to it by the law.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “("The doctrine invoked by counsel, that, where a court has once acquired jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which arises in the cause, and its judgment, however erroneous, cannot be collaterally assailed, is undoubtedly correct as a general proposition, but, like all general propositions, is subject to many qualifications in its application.... Though the court may possess jurisdiction of a cause, of the subject-matter, and of the parties, it is still limited in its modes of procedure, and in the extent and character of its judgments. It must act judicially in all things, and cannot then transcend the power conferred by the law.").”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In this case the statute gave the court power, on the removal of an executor or administrator, to order the assets of the decedent, which might remain unadminis-tered, to be delivered to the administrator de bonis non. The court made an order directing the delivery of the proceeds of administered assets. This was beyond the power conferred by the statute, and not within the jurisdiction of the court. The order was therefore void.””
    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.