Holmes v. Goldsmith’s Empirical Analysis
147 U.S. 150 · 1893
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 12 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1976 · most notably Williamson v. United States (1908), Michaelson v. United States ex rel. Chicago (1924)
80 federal appellate · 12 district · 34 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 Mullen v. Torrance · Missouri v. Lewis · Sheldon v. Sill · Turner v. Bank of North America · Metcalf v. City of Watertown
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The modem tendency, both of legislation and of the decision of courts, is to give as wide a scope as possible to the investigation of facts. Courts of error are specially unwilling to reverse eases because unimportant and possibly irrelevant testimony may have crept in, unless there is reason to think that practical injustice has been thereby caused.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be observed that the denial of Jurisdiction of suits by assignees has never been taken in an absolutely literal sense. It has been held that suits upon notes payable to a particular individual; or to bearer, may be maintained by the holder without any allegation of -citizenship by the original payee, though it is not to be doubted that the holder’s title to the note could only be derived through transfer or assignment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is quite plain that the plaintiffs’ action did not offend the spirit and purpose of this section of the act. The purpose of the restriction as to suits by assignees was to prevent the making of assignments of choses in action for the purpose of giving jurisdiction to the federal court.””
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.