Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 110 U.S. 183 - White v. Crow

White v. Crow’s Empirical Analysis

110 U.S. 183 · 1884

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
December 2001
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 5 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2001 · most notably Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. (1944), Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Co. (1888)

26 federal appellate · 5 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 20 states

2101884189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Cooper v. Reynolds · Grignon's Lessee v. Astor · John Voorhees v. James Jackson · Cornett v. Williams · Julia Thompson Tenant v. Alice Tolmie

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

  1. ““ The defendant being in court, was bound to take notice of its proceedings,* and might have corrected the error at any time during the term. It did not move to set the judgment aside. It filed no answer. The presumption, therefore, which the law makes is either that it consented to a submission of the case before the time for answer expired, or that it subsequently waived the error by not seeking to correct it.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ The settled rule of law is that jurisdiction having attached in the original case, everything done within the power of that jurisdiction, when collaterally questioned, is to be held conclusive of the rights of the parties, unless impeached for fraud.””
    2 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.