Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 U.S. 527 - Stryker v. Crane Chapman

Stryker v. Crane Chapman’s Empirical Analysis

123 U.S. 527 · 1887

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 5 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably Bigelow v. Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. (1912), Old Dominion Copper Mining & Smelting Co. v. Bigelow (1909)

23 federal appellate · 5 district · 18 state decisions

13018871890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Wolsey v. Chapman · Dubuque & Pacific Railroad v. Litchfield · Wolcott v. Des Moines Co. · Homestead Company v. Valley 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Wo have not overlooked the fact that a brief was filed at the hearing in ibis court on behalf of the railroad company to support the claim of Wolcott that the title of that company was the best. Such a proceeding did not make the railroad compaiiy a party to the suit, or bind it by the decree. Being interested in the question to be decided, the company was anxious to secure a judgment that could not be used as a precedent against its own claims in any litigation that might thereafter arise in respect to Its own property. It is not an uncommon thing in this court to allow briefs to be presented by or on behalf of persons who are not parties to the suit, but who are interested in the questions to be decided, and it has never been supposed that a judgment in such a ease would estop the intervenor in a suit of his own which presented the same questions.””
    3 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.