Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 U.S. 222 - Lancaster v. Collins

Lancaster v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis

115 U.S. 222 · 1885

Citation profile

136
cited by 136 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

80 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 136 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (1940), Diaz v. United States (1912)

80 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

37018851890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Day v. Woodworth · Deery v. Cray · Lucas v. Brooks · Mining Company v. Taylor

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

  1. ““As said by Mr. Justice Blatchford in Lancaster v. Collins, 115 U. S. 222 , 225, 6 Sup. Ct. 33 , 34 [ 29 L. Ed. 373 ]: ‘This court cannot review the weight of the evidence, and can look into it only to see whether there was error in not directing a verdict for the plaintiff on the question of variance, or because there was no evidence to sustain the verdict rendered.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No judgment should be reversed in a court of error when it is clear that the error could not have prejudiced, and did not prejudice, the rights of the party against whom the ruling was made.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It is also assigned for error that the court refused to permit the counsel for the plaintiff to make the closing argument to the jury, the contention on the part of the plaintiff being that the affirmative was with him. But this is purely a question of practice, to be reviewed only by a motion for a new trial in the trial court, and, is not the proper subject of a bill of exceptions or of a writ of error, because it does not affect the merits of the controversy.”
    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.