Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 11 U.S. 481 - Mills v. Duryee

Mills v. Duryee’s Empirical Analysis

11 U.S. 481 · 1813

Citation profile

185
cited by 185 later decisions
41
cited 41 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 12 district · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 185 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. (1982), Hilton v. Guyot (1895)

31 federal appellate · 12 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 24 states

1801813182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Preston v. Tremble · Brudenell v. Vaux · Armstrong v. Carson's Executors

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

  1. “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the ... judicial proceedings of every other state.... United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Acts, records and judicial proceedings . . . [of any State] shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States . . . as they have by law or usage in the courts of [the] State . . . from which they are taken.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Were the construction contended for by the plaintiff in error to prevail, that judgments of the state courts ought to be considered prima facie evidence only, this clause in the Constitution would be utterly unimportant and illusory. The common law would give such judgments precisely the same effect. It is manifest, however, that the Constitution contemplated a power in Congress to give a conclusive effect to such judgments, and we can perceive no rational interpretation of the act of Congress, unless it declare a judgment conclusive when a court of a particular state where it is rendered would pronounce the same decision.” Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cranch (U. S.) 481, 3 L. Ed. 411 .”
    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.