Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 U.S. 508 - Stanley v. Schwalby

Stanley v. Schwalby’s Empirical Analysis

147 U.S. 508 · 1893

Citation profile

357
cited by 357 later decisions
74
cited 74 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

99 federal appellate · 29 district · 78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 357 later decisions (74 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2022 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989)

99 federal appellate · 29 district · 78 state decisions — followed in 24 states

56018931900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Hans v. State of Louisiana · United States v. Lee · In re Ayers · Pennoyer v. McConnaughy · Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick Railroad

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

  1. “great principle of public policy, applicable to all governments alike, which forbids that the public interest should be prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confided.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he word 'person' in the statute would include [the States] as a body politic and corporate”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““They [the United States] cannot be subjected to legal proceedings' at law or in equity without their consent, and whoever institutes such proceedings must bring his case within the. authority of some act of Congress. Such is the language of this court in United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436 , 444. The same exemption from judicial process extends to the property of the United States, and for the same reasons. As justly observed by the learned judge who tried this ease, there is no distinction between suits against the government directly and suits against its property.””
    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.