Hess v. Reynolds’s Empirical Analysis
113 U.S. 73 · 1885
Citation profile
82 federal appellate · 42 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 260 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co. (1959), General Inv Co v. Lake Shore & M S Ry Co (1922)
82 federal appellate · 42 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Boom Company v. Patterson · Payne v. Hook · Case of Broderick's Will · Gaines v. Fuentes · Ellis v. Davis
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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, in controversies between citizens of different states, cannot be ousted or annulled by statutes of the states assuming to confer it exclusively on their own courts. * * * The controverted question of debt or no debt is one which, if the representative of the decedent is a citizen of a state different from that of the other party, the party properly situated has a right, given by the constitution of the United States, to have tried originally or by removal in a court of the United States, which cannot be defeated by state statutes enacted for the more convenient settlement of estates of decedents.” 113 U.S. at page 77 , 5 S.Ct. at page 378 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Foley · Johnson v. Johnson“very strongly that there may be acts on the same subject which are not thereby repealed.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Anri where a suit is now ponding, or may be hereafter brought, in any state court, in which there is a controversy between a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought and a citizen of another state, any defendant being sucli citizen of another state may remove such suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district, at any time before the trial thereof, when it shall be made to appear to said circuit court that, from prejudice or local influence, he will not be able to obtain justice in such state court, or in any other state court to which the said defendant may, under the laws of the state, have the rights on account of such prejudice or local influence to remove said cause, provided that, if it further appear that said suit can be fully and justly determined as to the other defendants in the state court, without being affected by such prejudice or local influence, and that no party to the suit will be prejudiced by a separation of the parties, said circuit court may direct the suit to be remanded, so far as it relates to such other defendants, to the state court, to be proceeded with therein.””
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.