Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 U.S. 435 - The Anne

The Anne’s Empirical Analysis

16 U.S. 435 · 1818

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2021 · most notably Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba (1976)

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

1101818182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Houston v. Moore · Clarke v. Rosenda · Lee v. Darramon · Fettretch v. Armstrong

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

  1. ““And this brings us to the second question in the cause; and that is, whether it was competent for the Spanish consul, merely by virtue of his office, and without the special authority of his government, to interpose a claim in this case for the assertion of the violated rights of his sovereign? We are of opinion, that his office confers on him no' such legal competency. A consul, though a public agent, is supposed to be clothed with authority only for commercial purposes. He has an undoubted right to interpose claims for the restitution of property belonging to the subjects of his own country; but he is not considered as a minister, or diplomatic agent of his sovereign, intrusted, by virtue of his office, with authority to represent him in his negotiations with foreign states, or to vindicate his prerogatives. There is no doubt, that his sovereign may specially intrust him with such authority; but in such case his diplomatic character is superadded to his ordinary powers, and ought to be recognized by the government within whose dominions he assumes to exercise it.' There is no suggestion or proof of any such delegation of special authority in this case; and therefore, we consider this claim as asserted by an incompetent person, and on that ground, it ought to be dismissed.””
    2 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.