Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 U.S. 104 - Thomson v. Wooster

Thomson v. Wooster’s Empirical Analysis

114 U.S. 104 · 1885

Citation profile

508
cited by 508 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

128 federal appellate · 51 district · 96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 508 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Winters v. United States (1908), Tilghman v. Proctor (1888)

128 federal appellate · 51 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 23 states

740188518901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Miller v. Brass Co. · Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum · Dunbar v. Myers · Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad

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

  1. “according to what is proper to be decreed upon the statements of the bill, assumed to be true,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “' “In all cases where the rules prescribed by this court or by the circuit court do not apply, the practice of the circuit court shall be regulated by the present practice of the high court of chancery in England, so far as the same may reasonably,be applied consistently with the local circumstances and local con veniences of the district whore the court is held, not as positive rules, but as furnishing just analogies to regulate the practice.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an order taking a bill pro confesso " and a "decree pro confesso, " the corresponding effect of the two steps were the same. We may properly say, therefore, that to take a bill pro confesso is to order it to stand as if its statements were confessed to be true; and that a decree pro confesso is a decree based on such statements, assumed to be true . . . and such a decree is as binding and conclusive as any decree rendered in the most solemn manner. "It cannot be impeached collaterally, but only upon a bill of review, or [a bill] to set it aside for fraud.”
    4 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.