Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 F.1d 1 - Nelson v. Meehan

Nelson v. Meehan’s Empirical Analysis

155 F. 1 · 1907

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
3
states following
October 1999
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 1999 · most notably United States v. Mayer (1914), United States v. Hill (1999)

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions

1101907191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Hilton v. Guyot · United States v. Throckmorton · Marshall v. Holmes · Bronson v. Schulten · United States v. Beebe

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

  1. ““We think these decisions establish the doctrine on which we decide the present case; namely, that the acts for which a court of equity will on account of fraud set aside or annul a judgment or decree, between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to frauds, extrinsic or collateral, to the matter tried py the first court, and not to a frcmd in the matter on which the decree was rendered. (Italics not quoted) “That the -mischief of retrying every case in which the judgment or decree rendered on false testimony, given by perjured witnesses, or on contracts or documents whose genuineness or validity was in issue, and which are afterwards ascertained to be forged or fraudulent, would be greater, by reason of the endless nature of the strife, than any compensation arising from doing justice in individual cases.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It has often, indeed, been declared by this court that the fraud which entitles a party to impeach the judgment of one of our own tribunals must be fraud extrinsic to the matter tried in the cause, and not merely consist in false and fraudulent documents or testimony submitted to that tribunal, and the truth of which was contested before it and passed upon by it.””
    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.