Kingsbury v. Buckner’s Empirical Analysis
134 U.S. 650 · 1890
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 3 district · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably In the Matter of Albertn Moore an Infant by Next Friend (1908), Gaines v. Caldwell George G Latta Gaines (1893)
69 federal appellate · 3 district · 101 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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 Pacific Railroad v. Ketchum · Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. And Others. 1 · Des Moines Navigation Co v. Iowa Homestead Co · McCormick v. Sullivant
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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is undoubtedly the rule in Illinois, as elsewhere, that a next friend or guardian ad litem cannot, by admissions or stipulations, surrender the rights of the infant. The court, whose duty it is to protect the interests of the infant, should see to it that they are not bargained away by those assuming, or appointed to represent him. But this rule does not prevent a guardian ad litem or prochein ami from assenting to such arrangements as will facilitate the determination of the case in which the rights of the infant are involved.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nor will a bill of review lie in the ease of newly-discovered evidence after the publication, or decree below, where a decision has taken place on an appeal, unless the right is reserved in the decree of the appellate court, or permission be given on an application to that court directly for the purpose. This appears to be the practice of the court of Chancery and house of lords in England, and we think it founded in principles essential to the proper administration of the law, and to a reasonable termination of litigation between parties in chancery suits.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““On a mandate from this conrt, affirming a decree, the circuit court can only record our order, and proceed with the execution of its own decree as affirmed. It has no power to rescind, or modify what we have established.” Southard v. Kussell, 16 How. 547 , 14 L. Ed. 1052 ; Kingsbury v. Buckner, 134 U. S. 650 , 671, 10 Sup. Ct. 638 , 33 L. Ed. 1047 ; Bank v. Taylor, 9 U. S. App. 408, 447, 4 C. C. A. 55 , 53 Fed. 854 ; In re Gamewell Fire-Alarm Tel. Co., 33 U. S. App. 452, 20 C. C. A. 111 , 73 Fed. 908 .”
2 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.