Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 U.S. 680 - Davis v. Wakelee

Davis v. Wakelee’s Empirical Analysis

156 U.S. 680 · 1895

Citation profile

1,172
cited by 1,172 later decisions
43
cited 43 times by the Supreme Court
35
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

302 federal appellate · 144 district · 184 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,172 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine (2001), Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936)

302 federal appellate · 144 district · 184 state decisions — followed in 35 states

231018951900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 · Railway Company v. McCarthy · Railroad Company v. National Bank · James Boyce's Executors v. Felix Grundy

Cited together with State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Pegram v. Herdrich · Dawson v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.

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 1,172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him.”
    57 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"Where a party gives a reason for his conduct and decision touching anything involved in a controversy, he cannot, after litigation has begun, change his ground, and put his attack upon another and a different consideration. He is not permitted thus to mend his hold. He is estopped from doing it by a settled principle of law.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[h]e obtained an order which he could only have obtained upon the theory that the judgment was valid”
    5 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.