Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 U.S. 241 - Deputron v. Young

Deputron v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

134 U.S. 241 · 1890

Citation profile

120
cited by 120 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
March 1997
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 7 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1997 · most notably McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1936), Swift & Co. v. United States (1928)

31 federal appellate · 7 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 13 states

24018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Barry v. Edmunds · The Philadelphia Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Philip Quigley · Hunnicutt v. Peyton · Barr v. Gratz's heirs

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

  1. “‘In Barry v. Edmunds. 116 U. S. 550 , 6 Sup. Ct. 501 , 29 L. Ed. 729 , it was held that a suit cannot properly be dismissed by a Circuit Court of the United Stales, as not involving a controversy within the jurisdiction of the court, unless the facts when made to appear on the record create a legal certainly of that conclusion. ‘Nothing less than this,’ said Mr. Justice Matthews, ‘is meant by tin* statute when it provides that the failure of its jurisdiction, on Bus account, shall appear to the satisfaction of said Circuit Court.’””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Where the rightful owner of real estate is in the actual occupancy of a part of his tract, he is in the constructive and legal possession and seisin of the whole, unless he is disseised by actual occupation and dispossession; and where the possession is mixed, the legal seisin is according to the legal title.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Clearly, where the .jurisdictional allegation is not traversed, no question involving the capacity of the parties in the cause to litigate in the circuit court can be raised before the jury (Railroad Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202 ), or treated as within the issues they might be impaneled to determine.”
    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.