Scott v. McNeal’s Empirical Analysis
154 U.S. 34 · 1894
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 13 district · 178 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 397 later decisions (65 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Malloy v. Hogan (1964), Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
26 federal appellate · 13 district · 178 state decisions — followed in 33 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 · United States v. Cruikshank · Huntington v. Attrill · Ex parte Virginia · Virginia v. Rives
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 397 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No judgment of a court is due process of law if rendered without jurisdiction in tbe court, or without notice to tbe party.””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘Upon- principle,’ says Chief Justice Marshall, ‘it would seem that the operation of every judgment must depend on the power of the court to render that judgment; or, in other words, on its jurisdiction over the subject-matter which it has determined. In some cases that jurisdiction unquestionably depends as well on the state of the thing as on the constitution of the court. If by any means whatever a. prize court should be induced to condemn, as prize of war; a vessel which was never captured, it could not be contended that this condemnation operated a change of property. Upon principle, then, it would seem that, to a certain extent, the capacity of the court' to act upon the thing condemned, arising from its being within, or without, their jurisdiction, as well as the constitution of the court, may be considered by that tribunal which is to decide on the effect of the sentence.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a judicial determination that a man is dead, made in his absence, and without any notice to or process issued against him,, conclusive for the purpose of divesting him of his property and vesting it in an administrator, for the benefit of his creditors and next of kin, either absolutely or in favor of those only who innocently deal with such administrator. The immediate and necessary effect of such a law is to deprive him of his property without any process of law whatever, as against him, although it is done by process by law against other people, his next of kin, to whom notice is given. Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.S. 34, 50 , 14 S.Ct. 1108, 1114 , 38 L.Ed. 896 (1894).”
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.