Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 U.S. 369 - Mackall v. Richards

Mackall v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis

112 U.S. 369 · 1884

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 1906
most recently cited

1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1906

1 state decisions

70188418901900decided

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 Lopez v. United States · Roberts v. Cooper · Himely v. Rose · Skillern's Executors v. May's Executors · Ex parte Story v. Story

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

  1. “all defendant’s right, title, claim, and interest in and to part of lot 7, in square 223, in the city of Washington, D. ,0., beginning at the northeast corner of said square and running thence south 44 feet; thence west to the west end of the lot; thence in a northerly direction with the west line thereof to the north line of said lot; thence with said north line to the place of beginning, together with all and singular the improvements thereon, seized and levied upon as the property of Brooke Mackall, jr., and will be sold to satisfy executions Nos. 3477, 3478, 4117, and 3708, in favor of Matthew G. Emery, George H. Plant, A. & T. E. Richards, and Owen & Wilson.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “for the reason that the decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, from which said appeal was taken, was by that court entered in accordance with, and in execution of, the mandate of this court., issued on a previous appeal and directed to that court; or if the said appeal shall not be dismissed, that the said decree of the said Supreme Court of the District of Columbia be affirmed, on the ground that, although in the opinion of this court, the record may show, that this court has jurisdiction, it is manifest that said appeal was taken for delay only, and that the said question on which the jurisdiction depends, is so frivolous as not to need further argument.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “all that portion of lot seven in square 223, in the city of Washington, lying south of a line drawn from "a point on the line of Fourteenth street, northwest, westwardly and parallel with New York avenue, to the west line of the said lot seven. This order is made without passing upon the validity of the said marshal’s sale.”
    1 later decision 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.