Hanley v. Donoghue’s Empirical Analysis
116 U.S. 1 · 1885
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 19 district · 125 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 338 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2006 · most notably Hilton v. Guyot (1895), Mills v. Green (1895)
69 federal appellate · 19 district · 125 state decisions — followed in 36 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 Thompson v. Whitman · Cooper v. Reynolds · William M'Elmoyle for the Use of Isaac Bailey v. John J Cohen · Lamar v. Micou
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 338 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the' Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,-records and proceedings shall be. proved, and the effect thereof.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Judgments recovered in one stale of the Union, wlien proved in the courts of another government, whether state or national, wdthin the United State's differ from judgments recovered in a foreign country in no other respect than in not being re-examinable on their merits, nor Impeachable for fraud in obtaining them, if rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the cause and of the parties.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simmons v. Saul · Hilton v. Guyott““It must be obvious, when the constitution declared that full faiili ¡mil credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and provides that congress may, hy general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall ho proved, and the effect thereof, that the latter clause, as it relates to judgments, was intended to provide the means of giving to them the conclusiveness of judgments upon the merits, when it is sought to carry them into judgments by suits in the tribunals of another state. The authenticity of a judgment, and its effect, depend upon the law made in pursuance of the constitution. The faith and credit due to it as the judicial proceeding of a state is given by the constitution, independently of all legislation. By the law of (he 20th of May, 1700, the judgment is made a debt of record, not examinable upon its merits; but it does not carry with It into ¡mother state the efficacy of a judgment upon property or persons, to he enforced hy execution. To give it the force of a. judgment in another state, it must he made a judgment there, and can only he executed In the latter as its law may permit. It must he conceded that the judgment of a state court cannot he enforced, out of the state, by an execution issued within it. This concession admits the conclusion that, under the first section of the fourth article of the constitution, judgments out of the state in which they are re”
2 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.