Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 U.S. 524 - Sugg v. Thornton

Sugg v. Thornton’s Empirical Analysis

132 U.S. 524 · 1889

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
April 1981
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1981 · most notably Davis v. Davis (1938), Laing v. Rigney (1896)

5 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

15018891890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Pennoyer v. Neff · 13 Ohio St. 563 - Fee v. Big Sand Iron Co.

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

  1. ““Such a general appearance to contest a judgment on account of irregularities will, if the grounds therefor are not sustained, conclude the parties as to any further questioning of the judgment. A party cannot come into court, challenge its proceedings on account-of irregularities, and after being overruled .be heard to say that- he never was a party in court, or bound by those proceedings.- If he was not in fact a party, and had not been properly served, he can have the proceedings set aside on the ground of want of jurisdiction, but he must challenge the proceedings on that single ground.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The judgment was not a personal judgment against J. D. Sugg, but a judgment against E. O. Sugg individually, and against E. C. Sugg & Bro., treating the partnership as a distinct legal entity. So far as J. D. Sugg was concerned, it bound the firm assets only, and could not be proceeded on by execution against his individual property.””
    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.