Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 U.S. 487 - Dravo v. Fabel

Dravo v. Fabel’s Empirical Analysis

132 U.S. 487 · 1889

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
February 1956
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1956 · most notably Shappirio v. Goldberg (1904), United States v. Carter (1910)

26 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions

18018891890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Conley v. Nailor · Dravo v. Fabel

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

  1. ““But that statute has no application to suits in equity in the courts of the United States. The act of congress providing that the practice, pleadings, forms, and modes of proceedings in civil causes in the courts of the United States shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, pleadings, forms, and modes of proceedings existing at the time in the courts of record of the state expressly excepts equity and admiralty causes. 17 Stat. 197 , e. 255, § 5, Rev. St. § 914 [U. S. Oomp. St. 1901, p. 684], So that, when the plaintiffs used the depositions of Dippold and Fabel, taken ‘as under cross-examination,’ they made those parties their own witnesses. While the plaintiffs were not concluded by their evidence, and might show they were mistaken, it could not be properly contended by the plaintiffs that they were unworthy of credit. The evidence must be given such weight as, under all the circumstances, it is fairly entitled to receive.””
    3 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.