Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 162 U.S. 255 - Stanley v. Schwalby

Stanley v. Schwalby’s Empirical Analysis

162 U.S. 255 · 1896

Citation profile

413
cited by 413 later decisions
72
cited 72 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
January 2001
most recently cited

101 federal appellate · 51 district · 89 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 413 later decisions (72 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2001 · most notably United States v. Sherwood (1941), Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949)

101 federal appellate · 51 district · 89 state decisions — followed in 25 states

860189619001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 United States v. Lee · Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's · Belknap v. Schild · Buck v. Colbath

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

  1. ““It is a fundamental principle of public law, affirmed by a long series of decisions of this court. * * * that no suit can be maintained against the United States, or against their property, in any court, without express authority of Congress. ® ® Neither the Secretary of War nor the Attorney General, nor any subordinate of either, lias been authorized to waive the exemption of the United States from judicial process, or to submit the United States, or their property, to the jurisdiction of the court in a suit brought against their officers.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A valuable consideration may be other than the actual payment of money, and may consist of acts to be done after the conveyance. Prewitt v. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22 ; Hintz v. Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722, 727 [4 Sup. Ct. 613]; 4 Kent Com. 463; Dart, Vend ors (6th Ed.), 1018, 1019. The advantage inuring to the city of San Antonio from the establishment of the military headquarters there was clearly a valuable consideration for the deed of the city to the United States.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““But in order to charge a purchaser with notice of a prior unrecorded conveyance, he or his agent must either have knowledge of the conveyance, or at least of such circumstances as would, by the exercise of ordinary diligence and judgment, lead to that knowledge; and vague rumor or suspicion is not a sufficient foundation upon which to charge a purchaser with knowledge of' a title in a third person.””
    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.