Mexican Cent Ry Co v. Rinkney’s Empirical Analysis
149 U.S. 194 · 1893
Citation profile
86 federal appellate · 39 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 281 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2009 · most notably United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co (1922), Beavers v. Haubert (1905)
86 federal appellate · 39 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 11 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 · Indianapolis and St Louis Railroad Company v. Horst · Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes · Southern Pac Co v. Denton · Fisk
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 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under this act, the Circuit Courts of the United States follow the practice of the courts of the state in regard to the form and order of pleading, including the manner in which objections may be taken to the jurisdiction, and the question whether objections to the jurisdiction and defences on the merits shall be pleaded successively or together. Delaware County v. Diebold, Safe Co., 133 U. S. 473 , 488 [ 10 Sup. Ct. 399 , 33 L. Ed. 674 ]; Roberts v. Lewis, 144 U. S. 653 [ 12 Sup. Ct. 781 , 36 L. Ed. 579 ]. But the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States has been defined and limited by the acts of Congress, and can he neither restricted nor enlarged by the statutes of a state.” 146 U. S. 209 , 13 Sup. Ct. 47 , 36 L. Ed. 942 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is well settled that mere matters of procedure, such as the granting or refusing of motions for new trials, and questions respecting amendments to the pleadings, are purely discretionary matters for the consideration of the trial court, and, unless there has been gross abuse of that discretion, they are not reviewablo in this court on writ of error.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The right of the defendant to insist upon the oh.iection to the illegality of the service was not waived by the special appearance of counsel for him to move the dismissal of the action on that ground, or, what we consider as intended, that Hie service be set aside, nor, when that motion was overruled, by their answering for him to the merits of the action. Illegality in a proceeding by which jurisdiction is to be obtained is in no case waived by the appearance of the defendant for the’ purpose of calling the attention of the court to such irregularity, nor is the objection waived when, being urged, it is overruled, and the defendant is hereby compelled to answer. He is not considered as abandoning his objection because he does not submit to further proceedings without contestation. It is only where he pleads to the merits in the first instance, without insisting upon the illegality, that the objection is deemed to be waived.””
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.