Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 U.S. 341 - Inhabitants of the Township of Bernards v. Stebbins Same

Inhabitants of the Township of Bernards v. Stebbins Same’s Empirical Analysis

109 U.S. 341 · 1883

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Zahn v. International Paper Co. (1973), Margaret Williamson v. Katherine Osenton (1914)

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions

18018831890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Cromwell v. County of Sac · Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair County of Essex v. Ramsdell · Sheldon v. Sill · Barney v. Baltimore City · Williams v. Nottawa

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

  1. ““It is apparent from the law that the substantial thing authorized to ho done in behalf, of the town was to pledge the credit of the town in aid of the railroad company in the construction of its road, by subscribing to its capital stock, and issuing the obligations of the town in payment thereof. The. technical form of the obligations was a matter of form, rather than substance. The issue of bonds under seal, as distinguished from bonds or obligations without a seal, was merely a directory requirement.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In tlie matter of the jurisdiction of the federal courts, the discrimination1 between suits between citizens of the same state and suits between citi-' zens of different states, is established by the constitution and laws- of the United States; and it has been the constant effort of congress and of this.’ court to prevent this discrimination from being evaded by bringing into the federal court controversies between citizens of the same state.” :”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The holders of interest coupons on municipal bonds transferred them, to the amount of $7,922, to the defendant in error, the consideration being a note for $500 and an agreement to pay over the balance of fifty per cent, of the net amount when collected. Held, that a suit on said coupons brought in the Circuit Court of the United States' should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, the ease being within the Act of 1875.””
    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.