Wilson v. Seligman’s Empirical Analysis
144 U.S. 41 · 1892
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1998 · most notably Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin (1990), Goldey v. Morning News (1895)
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · St. Clair v. Cox · Ex parte Schollenberger · Lafayette Insurance v. French · James D'Arcy v. Morris Ketchum Thomas Rogers and Edward Bement Copartners Trading Under the Name and Firm of Ketchum Rogers and Bement
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“involv[e] merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within [the court's] jurisdiction by service of process within the State, or his voluntary appearance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is in virtue of the state’s jurisdiction over the property of the nonresident situated within its limits that its tribunals can inquire into that nonresident’s obligations to its own citizens, and the inquiry can then be carried only to the extent necessary to control the disposition of the property. If the nonresident have no property in the state, there is nothing upon which the tribunals can adjudicate. These views are not new. They have been frequently expressed, with more or less distinctness, in opinions of eminent judges, and have been carried into adjudications in numerous cases.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““He [Seligman] denies that he was a stockholder, and the question whether he was one was not tried or decided in the controversy between the plaintiff and the corporation, nor involved in the judgment recovered by one of those parties against the other. Under the statute of Missouri, and upon fundamental principles of jurisprudence, he is entitled to legal notice, and trial of the issue whether he is a stockholder, before he can be charged with personal liability as such.””
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.