Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 U.S. 594 - Ayers v. Watson

Ayers v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

113 U.S. 594 · 1885

Citation profile

289
cited by 289 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
August 2011
most recently cited

98 federal appellate · 29 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 289 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton (1914), Powers v. Chesapeake O Ry Co (1898)

98 federal appellate · 29 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 20 states

42018851890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Railroad Company v. Koontz Railroad Company · Hyde v. Ruble · King v. Cornell

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

  1. “essential if insisted on, but, according to the ordinary principles which govern such cases, may be waived, either expressly or by implication.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “§ 1442a. Members of armed forces sued or prosecuted A civil or criminal prosecution in a court of a State of the United States against a member of the armed forces of the United States on account of an act done under color of his office or status, or in respect to which he claims any right, title, or authority under a law of the United States respecting the armed forces thereof, or under the law of war, may at any time before the trial or final hearing thereof be removed for trial into the district court of the United States for the district where it is pending in the manner prescribed by law, and it shall thereupon be entered on the docket of the district court, which shall proceed as if the cause had been originally commenced therein and shall have full power to hear and determine the cause. Added Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, § 19(a), 70A Stat. 626.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “And when in any suit mentioned in this section there shall be a controversy which is wholly between citizens of different States, and which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the defendants actually interested in such controversy may remove said suit into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district,”
    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.