Cross v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
141 U.S. 528 · 1891
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 20 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Prairie State Nat Bank of Chicago v. United States (1896), Kramer v. Caribbean Mills, Inc. (1969)
39 federal appellate · 20 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Ewell v. Daggs · Reese v. United States · Farmington Village Corp v. Pillsbury · Ackley School District v. Hall
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Without discussing this question upon the merits, it is sufficient to say tha t: the Supreme Court of the state has decided in the affirmative in at least two separate cases, * * * and it is not our province to question such construction. Being a construction by the highest court of the state of its Constitution and laws, we should accept it. * * * Such argument might with propriety be addressed to the Supreme Court of the state, but it is without favor here. We are bound to presume that, when the question arose in the state court, it was thoroughly considered by that tribunal, and that the decision rendered embodied its deliberate jiidgment thereon.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“So long as the demands secured were not barred by the statute of limitations, there could be no laches in prosecuting a suit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The transfer of the notes and mortgages having been made for a valuable consideration, and the pecuniary interest of the transferrer in the subject matter of the transfer having thereby terminated, it makes no difference that by such transaction the transferee acquired the advantage of suing in the Federal court. This suit, so far as the record shows, is for the sole and exclusive benefit of the complainant, Allen.” See also Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 327 , 16 S.Ct. 307 , 40 L.Ed. 444 .”
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.