In re Hohorst’s Empirical Analysis
150 U.S. 653 · 1893
Citation profile
96 federal appellate · 59 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 401 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Goldey v. Morning News (1895), Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board (1925)
96 federal appellate · 59 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca · Ex Parte Shaw · St. Clair v. Cox · Ex parte Schollenberger · Southern Pac Co v. Denton
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 401 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Their object is to distribute among the particular districts the general jurisdiction fully and clearly granted in the earlier part of the section.””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the Hohorst Case it was held that the clause in question, that no cavil suit ^should be brought against any person in any other district than that whereof he was an inhabitant, was manifestly inapplicable to a suit brought by a citizen of one of the United States against an alien, and that the words of the provision evidently looked to those persons, and those persons only, who were inhabitants of some district within the United States,” and “to prevent a manifest failure of justice, in the inability to sne any foreign corporation whatever, it was held that, where an alien corporation was defendant, it might be sued in any district wherein it might be found.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, ‘the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum- or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states’ ‘or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects.’ 24 Stat. 552 ; 25 Stat. 434 . The intention of Congress is manifest, at least as to cases of which the courts of the several states have concurrent jurisdiction, and which involve a certain amount or value, to vest in the Circuit Courts of the United States full and effectual jurisdiction, as contemplated by the Constitution, over each of the classes of controversies above mentioned. Moreover, the present suit is for the infringement of a patent for an invention, the jurisdiction of the national courts over which depends upon the subject-matter, and not upon the parties; and, by statutes in force at the time of the passage of the acts of 1887 a”
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.