Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 U.S. 72 - Alexandre v. MacHan

Alexandre v. MacHan’s Empirical Analysis

147 U.S. 72 · 1893

Citation profile

727
cited by 727 later decisions
26
cited 26 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
April 1988
most recently cited

318 federal appellate · 181 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 727 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1988 · most notably United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. (1975), The Oregon (1895)

318 federal appellate · 181 district · 13 state decisions

13401893190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 the "Abbotsford" · Sun Mutual Insurance v. Ocean Insurance · Walker v. Dun · The " Francis Wright"

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

  1. ““Where fault on the part of one vessel is established by uncontradicted testimony, and such fault is, of itself, sufficient to account for the disaster, it is not enough for such vessel to raise a doubt with regard to the management of the other vessel. There is some presumption at least adverse to its claim, and any reasonable doubt with regard to the propriety of the conduct of such other vessel should be resolved in its favor.””
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is undoubtedly true that if the circuit court neglects or refuses, on request, to make a finding one way or the other on a question of fact material to the determination of the cause, when evidence lias been adduced on the subject, an exception to such refusal, taken in time, and properly presented by a bill of exceptions, may be considered here on appeal. So, too, if the court, against remonstrance, finds a material fact which is not supported by any evidence whatever, and exception is taken, a bill of exceptions may be used to bring up for review the ruling in that particular. In the one case the refusal to find would be equivalent to a ruling that the fact was immaterial: and in the other, that there was some evidence to prove what is found, when in truth there was none. Both these are questions of law, and proper subjects for review in an appellate 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.