Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 U.S. 348 - Reynolds v. Adden

Reynolds v. Adden’s Empirical Analysis

136 U.S. 348 · 1890

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
September 1993
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 12 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1993 · most notably Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper (1932), Moran v. Sturges (1894)

17 federal appellate · 12 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states

18018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Cole v. Cunningham · 24 La. Ann. 363 - T. T. Tyree & Co. v. Sands & Co. · Lichtenstein Bros. v. Gillett Bros.

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

  1. ““Every state exercises to a greater or less extent, as it deems expedient, the comity of giving effect to the insolvent proceedings of other stales, except as it may be compelled to give them full effect by the Constitution of the United States. Where the transfer of the debtor’s property i.s the result of a judicial proceeding, as in the present case, there is no provision of (lie Constitution which requires the couris of another state to carry it into effect ; and, as a general rule, no state court will do this to the prejudice of the citizens of its own state””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[The acts] induced no conduct on the part of the appellant, or of any of the creditors of John H. Adden, which operated to their prejudice. They contained no element of estoppel.”
    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.