Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 U.S. 187 - Ayres v. Wiswall

Ayres v. Wiswall’s Empirical Analysis

112 U.S. 187 · 1884

Citation profile

273
cited by 273 later decisions
31
cited 31 times by the Supreme Court
26
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 31 district · 82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 273 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2021 · most notably Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange (1926), City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York (1941)

38 federal appellate · 31 district · 82 state decisions — followed in 26 states

480188418901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Ex parte Lange · Meyer v. Construction Co. · Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum · Hyde v. Ruble

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

  1. “It will be for the state court, when the case gets back there, to determine what shall be done with pleadings filed and testimony taken during the pendency of the suit in the other jurisdiction.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The fifth section of the act of March 3, 1875, makes it the duty of the circuit court of the United States to remand a cause which has been removed from a state court when it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court, at any time after the suit has been removed, that such suit does not really and substantially involve a dispute or controversy properly within the jurisdiction of the court.” Ayers v. Chicago, 101 U. S. 187 ; Barney v. Latham, supra.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The rule is now well established that this clause in the section refers only to suits when there exists ‘ a separate and distinct cause of action, on. which a separate and distinct suit might have been brought, and complete relief afforded as to such'cause of action, with all the parties on one side of that controversy citizens of different states from those on the other. To say the least, the case must be one capable of separation into parts, so that, in one of the parts, a controversy will be presented with citizens of one or more states on one side, and citizens of-other states on the other, which can be fully determined without the presence of the other parties to the suit as it has been begun.’ ” Ayres v. Wiswall, 112 U. S. 192 , 193, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90 ; Fraser v. Jennison, 106 U. S. 191 , 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171 .”
    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.