Manchester v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts’s Empirical Analysis
139 U.S. 240 · 1891
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 67 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 333 later decisions (84 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2007 · most notably Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917), Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979)
52 federal appellate · 67 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Gibbons v. Ogden · Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co Tennessee · Aaron Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia to the Use of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Pilots Their Widows and Children Same · John Pollard et al. v. John Hagan et al. · Jones v. United States
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 333 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"5. The extent of the territorial jurisdiction of Massachusetts over the sea adjacent to its coast is that of an independent nation; and, except so far as any right of control over this territory has been granted to the United States, this control remains with the State. "6. Within what are recognized by the law of nations as the territorial limits of States, a State can define its boundaries on the sea and the boundaries of its counties; Massachusetts can include Buzzard's Bay within the limits of its counties."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The title thus held is subject to the paramount right of navigation, the regulation of which, in respect to foreign and inter-state commerce, has been granted to the United States. There has been, however, no such grant of power over the fisheries. These remain under the exclusive control of the State, * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc. · William A. Moore v. Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission and City of Newport News, William A. Moore v. Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission, and City of Newport News, William A. Moore v. The City of Newport News, and Hampton Roads Sanitation District Commission“was evidently passed for the preservation of the fish, and makes no discrimination in favor of citizens of Massachusetts and against citizens of other States.”
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.