Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 U.S. 588 - Rouse v. Hornsby

Rouse v. Hornsby’s Empirical Analysis

161 U.S. 588 · 1896

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 1938
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1938 · most notably Arkadelphia Milling Co v. St Louis Southwestern Ry Co Hasty (1919), Gableman v. Peoria, Decatur & Evansville Railway Co. (1900)

2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

8018961900191019201930decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedRouse v. Hornsby (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox · Rouse v. Letcher · Carey v. Houston T C Ry Co · Gregory v. Van Ee

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

  1. ““As the final order below was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, we are not called upon to entertain jurisdiction simply because that affirmance was entered on the writ of error rather than the appeal.” Rouse v. Hornsby, 161 U. S. 588 , 16 Sup. Ct. 588 , 40 L. Ed. 817 .”
    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.