Dick v. Foraker’s Empirical Analysis
155 U.S. 404 · 1894
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1962 · most notably Smyth v. Ames (1898), Heckman v. United States (1912)
52 federal appellate · 6 district · 12 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 Holland v. Challen · Galpin v. Page · Arndt v. Griggs · Frost v. Spitley · Mellen v. Moline Malleable Iron Works
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is obvious, therefore, that, if that deed did not pass the legal title, the appellant is without standing in eourt; for although, under the laws of Mississippi (Code 1892, § 500), a bill may be maintained in the circuit court of the United States by a person not in possession against another who is also out of possession, as is the case here, ‘still this does not make the complainant’s rights any the less dependent upon title in him, nor does it put him in a position to have a cloud removed from a title which has no existence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We further report that we are fully satisfied that a sale of the lands embraced in this report thus returned to the tax books, the settling of disputed titles, etc., will inure to the benefit of the entire community; and we further report that we find certain lands marked on the bill were claimed by parties who have made to us satisfactory showing that the said lands were improperly thereon, and that said parties claimed that the taxes thereon had been paid, and that the title of the state to certain other lands was good. 44”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘ * * * The recital of the decree that .there was proper notice to the parties in interest is not conclusive of that fact, but must be read in connection with that part of the record which gives, or is required to give, the official evidence of jurisdiction, as prescribed by statute. Boyd v. Roane, 49 Arkansas, 397, [ 5 S.W. 704 ]; Settlemier v. Sullivan, [ 7 Otto 444 ], 97 U.S. 444 , [ 24 L.Ed. 1110 ]; Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350 , [ 21 L.Ed. 959 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Austin v. Smith
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.