Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 U.S. 246 - Gelston v. Hoyt

Gelston v. Hoyt’s Empirical Analysis

16 U.S. 246 · 1818

Citation profile

207
cited by 207 later decisions
51
cited 51 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 42 district · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 207 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Carroll v. United States (1925), Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920)

43 federal appellate · 42 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 14 states

320181818201830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Locke v. The United States · Rose v. Himely · Slocum v. Mayberry · United States v. 1960 Bags of Coffee

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

  1. ““But the other point which has been stated .* * * Involves the construction of the act of 1794 (chapter 50, § 3). * * * No evidence was offered to prove that either of these governments was recognized by the government of the United States, or of France, ‘as a foreign prince or state’; and, if the court was bound to admit the evidence, as it stood, without this additional proof, it must have been upon the ground that it was bound to take judicial notice of the relations of the country with foreign states, and to decide affirmatively that Petion and Christophe were foreign princes within the purview of the statute. No doctrine is bettor established than that it belongs exclusively to governments to recognize new states, in the revolutions which occur in the world; and until such recognition, either by our own government or the government to which the new state belonged, courts of justice arc bound to consider the ancient state of things as remaining unaltered.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Lucy H.
  2. ““It must be directed either to that tribunal which can execute it, to that in which the record and judgment to be examined are deposited, or to that whose judgment is to be examined, although, from its structure, it may have been rendered incapable of performing the act required by the writ. Since the law requires a thing to be done, and gives the writ of error as the means by which it is to be done, without prescribing in this particular the manner in which the writ is to be used, it appears to the court to be perfectly clear that the writ must be so used as to effect the object. It may then be directed to either court in which the record and judgment on which it is to act may be found. The judgment to be examined must be that of the highest court of the state having cognizance of the case, but the record of that judgment may be brought from any court in which it may be legally deposited, and in which it may be found by the writ.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Where property is seized and libelled as forfeited to the government, the sole object of the suit is to ascertain whether the seizure he rightful, and the forfeiture incurred or not. The decree of the court, in such case, acts upon the thing itself, and binds the interests of all the world, whether any party actually appears or not. * * * The reason, however, of this rule is to be found in the nature of proceedings in rem. To such proceedings all persons having an interest or title in the subject matter are, as we have already stated, in law, deemed parties; and the decree of the court is conclusive upon all interests and titles in controversy before 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.