Eustis v. Bolles’s Empirical Analysis
150 U.S. 361 · 1893
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 219 later decisions (118 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2004 · most notably Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950), South Dakota v. Neville (1983)
7 federal appellate · 3 district · 22 state decisions
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 Huntington v. Attrill · Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy · Murdock v. City of Memphis · Edwards v. Kearzey · Reynes v. Dumont
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 219 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that when we find it-unnecessary to decide any Federal question, and when the state court has based its decision on a local or state question, our logical course is to dismiss the writ of error.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is axiomatic that, in order to give this court jurisdiction on writ of error to the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, it must appear affirmatively, not only that a Federal question was presented for decision by the highest court of the State having jurisdiction, but that its decision was necessary to the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided or that the judgment as rendered could not have been given without deciding it. And where the decision complained of rests on independent ground, not involving a Federal question and broad enough to maintain the judgment, the writ of error will be dismissed by this court without considering any Federal question that may also have been presented.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ It is likewise settled law that, where the record discloses that if a question has been raised and decided adversely to a party claiming the benefit of a provision of the Constitution or laws of the United States, another question, not Federal, has been also raised and decided against such party, and the decision of the latter question is sufficient, notwithstanding, the Federal question, to sustain the judgment, this court will not review the judgment.” See also Wade v. Lawder, 165 U. S. 624 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrison v. Morton
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.