Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 U.S. 9 - Griffith v. Frazier

Griffith v. Frazier’s Empirical Analysis

12 U.S. 8 · 1814

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad (1893), Ex Parte Tobias Watkins (1830)

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states

110181418201830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Comstock v. Crawford · Roderigas v. . East River Savings Institution · Elias Kane v. Gabriel Paul · Roderigas v. . East River Savings Institution

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

  1. ““Suppose administration to be granted on the estate of a person not really dead. The act, all will admit, is totally void. Yet the ordinary must always inquire and decide whether the person whose estate is to be committed to the care of others be dead or in life. It is a branch of every cause in which letters of administration issue. Yet the decision of the ordinary that the person on whose estate he acts is dead, if the fact be otherwise, does not invest the person he may appoint with the character or powers of an administrator. The case, in truth, was not one within his jurisdiction. It was not one in which he had a right to deliberate. It was not committed to him by the law. And although one of the points occurs in all cases proper for Ms tribunal, yet that point cannot bring the subject within Ms jurisdiction.””
    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.