Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan’s Empirical Analysis
111 U.S. 379 · 1884
Citation profile
929 federal appellate · 193 district · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,395 later decisions (195 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986), United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947)
929 federal appellate · 193 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 Grace v. American Central Insurance · Barney v. Baltimore City · Robertson v. Cease · Mayor v. Cooper
Cited together with Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Bender v. Williamsport Area School District · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Mitchell v. Maurer
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 2,395 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The requirement that jurisdiction be established as a threshold matter 'spring[s] from the nature and limits of the judicial power of the United States' and is 'inflexible and without exception.'”
93 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the above entitled and numbered cause, now comes the plaintiff in error, and, with the leave of the court and with the consent of the defendant in error, shows unto the court that at the time of filing the petition for removal from the state court to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana, it was a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Missouri, and no other, and a citizen of that state, and no other, with its domicile at Kansas City, in said state, and that the defendant, Clark Prunty, was a citizen and resident of the state of Louisiana, and no other, both at the time of filing his said suit and at the time of said application to remove said cause, and still is a citizen of said state; that through an oversight the state in which said defendant had his domicile as aforesaid was left blank in the petition asking said removal, but said diverse citizenship was averred in said petition for removal, and appears from said petition of said defendant in error to the state court, in which he set forth that he was a resident of the state of Louisiana, meaning thereby that he was a citizen thereof, and that your petitioner was a corporation organized under and domiciled in the state of Missouri; and, as a fact, diversity of citizenship still exists, and your petitioner desires to amend hs original pleading, so as to conform to the facts as existing at the time and still existing. Premises considered, plaintiff in error prays to ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““These provisions were manifestly designed to avoid the application of the general rule, which, in cases where the suit failed for want of jurisdiction, denied the avihority of the court to award judgment against the losing party, eren for costs. McIver v. Wattles, 9 Wheat. 650 [ 6 L. Ed. 182 ]; Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247 [ 18 L. Ed. 851 ].””
3 later decisions 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.