Ex Parte Shaw’s Empirical Analysis
145 U.S. 444 · 1892
Citation profile
146 federal appellate · 111 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 662 later decisions (64 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1939), Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation (1957)
146 federal appellate · 111 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Paul v. Virginia · Bank of Augusta v. Earle · St. Clair v. Cox · Ex parte Schollenberger
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 662 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As to natural persons, therefore, it cannot be doubted that the effect of this act, read in the light of earlier acts upon the same subject and of the judicial construction thereof, is that the phrase ‘district of the residence of’ a person is equivalent to ‘district whereof he is an inhabitant,’ and cannot bfe construed as giving jurisdiction, by reason of citizenship, to a circuit court held in a state of which neither party is a citizen, but, on the contrary,, restricts the jurisdiction to the district in which one of the parties resides within the state of which he is a citizen; and that this act, therefore, having taken away the alternative, permitted in the earlier acts, of suing a person in the district ‘in which he shall be found,’ requires any suit, the jurisdiction of which is founded only on its being between citizens of different states, to be brought in the state of which one is a citizen, and in the district therein of which he is an inhabitant and resident.””
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““And no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in, which he shall he found at the time of serving such process or commencing such proceeding, except as hereinafter provided.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Hohorst · Marks v. Marks““Moreover, the primary grant of jurisdiction eonhiinccl in the first clause of the first section — to which it is possible the removal section refers, rattier than to the more restricted clause relating to the locality of the suit — is of the iuom extensive character, and broad enough to give the court jurisdiction by removal of any suit between citizens of different, states brought in a state court, although tlie locality might not be available for original jurisdiction of the federal court under tlie subsequent restrictive clauses of tho first section. So that the restrictions of locality as to suits originally brought may not apply to the jurisdiction by removal at all. Til other words, we must look alone" to the restrictions of the removal section for the qualifications of that jurisdiction, and treat those relating to the locality of original suits as wholly inapplicable to the entirely different subject of jurisdiction by removal. Whether this bo k proper construction, we need not say, blit it is neither imx>ossibie nor improbable, nor yet an unreasonable construction.””
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.