Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 U.S. 293 - Stutsman County Dak v. Wallace

Stutsman County Dak v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

142 U.S. 293 · 1892

Citation profile

123
cited by 123 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
December 1953
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 123 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1953 · most notably Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. (1911), Ex Parte Tyler (1893)

43 federal appellate · 2 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 10 states

3101892190019101920193019401950decided

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 Norton v. Shelby County · Buck v. Colbath · Dynes v. Hoover · McDonald v. Hovey · Gormley v. Clark

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

  1. ““When, by mistake or unlawful act of the treasurer, land has been sold on which no tax was due at the time, or whenever land is sold unlawfully in consequence of any other mistake or irregularity rendering the same void, the county shall hold the purchaser harmless by paying him the amount of the principal, interest and cost to which he would have been entitled had the land been rightfully sold, and the treasurer and his sureties will be liable to the county for the amount; provided, that the treasurer or his sureties shall be liable only for his own or his deputies’ acts.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The known and settled construction of a statute of one state will be regarded as accompanying its adoption by another.””
    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.