Walworth v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
129 U.S. 355 · 1889
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2006 · most notably Pullman's Palace-Car Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1891), Cole v. Cunningham (1890)
10 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
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 Bank of Augusta v. Earle · Canada Southern Ry Co v. Gebhard Same · Hervey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works · Green v. Van Buskirk · Green v. Van Buskirk
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he court [in Green v. Van Buskirk, 72 U.S. 307 5 Wall. 307 , 18 L.Ed. 599 ] considered very fully the much controverted principle as to the extraterritorial effect of laws affecting the title or liens upon the property in one State when that property was carried away or became the subject of litigation in another State; and while it was seen that in many cases it had been held that a court of one State would give effect to the law of domicil of another State, it was said: ‘But after all, this is a mere principle of comity between the courts which must give way when the statutes of the country, where property is situated, or the established policy of its laws prescribe to its courts a different rule. The learned commentator, already referred to, [Story on Conflict of Laws, Section 390,] in speaking of the law in Louisiana, which gives paramount title to an attaching creditor over a transfer made in another State, which is the domicil of the owner of the property, says: “No one can seriously doubt that it is competent for any State to adopt such a rule in its own legislation, since it has perfect jurisdiction over all property, personal as well as real, within its territorial limits. Nor can such a rule, made for the benefit of innocent purchasers and creditors, be deemed justly open to the reproach of being founded in a narrow or selfish policy.” Again, he says: “Every nation, having a right to dispose of all the property actually situated within it, has (as has been often”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If a person sends Ms property within a jurisdiction different from that where he resides, he impliedly submits it to the rules and regulations enforced in the country where he places it.””
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.