Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 F.1d 319 - King v. Thompson

King v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

110 F. 319 · 1901

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
December 1926
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Brine v. Insurance Co. · Provident Institution for Savings in Jersey City v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City · Toledo Co v. Hamilton · Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Cushman · Southern Ry. Co. v. Bouknight

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

  1. ““The appeal was taken in open court at the time the decree was entered. The railway, company and other parties were presumably present, and bound to take notice thereof. They then had an opportunity to join in the appeal, if . they desired to do so, and by refraining they signify their purpose not to appeal. In such ease no citation is necessary. The parties are already in court, and the action of the court binds all the parties to the suit. An appeal allowed in this manner binds all the necessary parties to the appeal, without citation or summons and severance. They have constructive notice of the appeal, and may join therein at their election. In this case the receiver’s appeal raises all the questions which the railroad company would raise by its separate appeal, and by its-silence it signifies a willingness to let his appeal settle the rights of the parties. This was expressly ruled in McNulta v. Com’rs, 99 F. 328 , 39 C. C. A. 545 , and Rice Co. v. Libbey, 105 F. 825 , decided in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and we are disposed to concur in the conclusions therein reached.””
    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.