In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.’s Empirical Analysis
160 U.S. 247 · 1895
Citation profile
510 federal appellate · 62 district · 114 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,215 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Quern v. Jordan (1979), Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank (1939)
510 federal appellate · 62 district · 114 state decisions — followed in 27 states
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 Ex Parte Charles Sibbald v. The United States · Runkle v. Burnham · Reynolds v. First Nat Bank of Crawfordsville Indiana · Gaines v. Caldwell George G Latta Gaines
Cited together with Briggs v. Pennsylvania Railroad · In re Potts · Sprage v. Ticonic Nat Bank · Quern v. Jordan · Gaines v. Caldwell George G Latta Gaines
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 1,215 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution; or give any other or further relief; or review it, even for apparent error, upon a matter decided on appeal; or intermeddle with it, further than to settle so much as has been remanded.”
69 later decisions quote this exact passage“The case is quite different, in this respect, from those in which the whole case, or all but a subsidiary question of accounting, had been brought to and decided by this court upon the appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That mandamus is the only remedy that will give the Brietson Manufacturing Company the relief'that it needs, is entitled to, and must have, otherwise it will suffer irreparable injury and loss, since its funds and property have at all times since the 3d day of September, 1921, been and still is in the hands of Ralph M. West as receiver, because of the failure first of Hon. J. W. Wood-rough and later and at the present time, because of the failure of Hon. T. C. Munger to enforce the carrying out of the terms of the mandate of this court hereinbefore referred to and set forth. That because of the foregoing facts, the assets and propérty óf the Brietson Manufacturing Company has since the 3d day of September, 1921, and still is, impounded so that it cannot use the same to pay the fees of the clerk of the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska, Omaha Division, as well as the costs of the printing of the record on appeal and its briefs, and the fees of the clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in connection with the appeals hereinbefore mentioned. That if Ralph M. West, the receiver, had or would or does turn over to the Brietson Manufacturing Company, its property in his hands, it could and would be able to pay the foregoing costs and expenses and proceed with its appeals above mentioned without delay.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.