Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 NY 156 - Dobson v. . Pearce

Dobson v. . Pearce’s Empirical Analysis

1854

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
January 1972
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1972 · most notably Sarah Fall v. Elizabeth Eastin (1909), Sistare v. Sistare (1910)

63 state decisions — followed in 17 states

1801854186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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.

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

  1. ““Pronounce upon the rights of the parties in respect to the judgment and to decree concerning it. It necessarily follows that the decree of the superior court of Connecticut, sitting as a court of chancery, directly upon the question of fraud, is conclusive upon the parties to that litigation, and all persons claiming under them with notice of the adjudication. The judgment of a .court of competent jurisdiction upon a point litigated between the parties, is conclusive in all subsequent controversies where the same point comes again in question between the same parties. . . In the state of Connecticut, it is quite clear the question of fraud would not be an open question between the parties, but would be considered entirely settled by the decree of the court of that state, and as full faith and credit are to be given by each state to the judicial proceedings of every other state, that is, the same credit, validity and effect as they would have in the state in which they were had, the parties are concluded in the courts of this state by the judgment of the court in Connecticut directly upon the question in issue. . . The decree of the court of chancery of the state of Connecticut as an operative decree, so far as it enjoined and restrained the parties, had and has no extra territorial efficacy, as an injunction does not affect the courts 'of this state; but the judgment of the court upon the matters litigated is conclusive upon the parties everywhere and in every forum where th”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.