Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 U.S. 367 - Noble v. Mitchell

Noble v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

164 U.S. 367 · 1896

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
July 1964
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1964 · most notably United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (1944), Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama (1911)

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 10 state decisions

15018961900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Paul v. Virginia · Hooper v. People of State of California · Dower v. Richards · Baldwin v. Franks · Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Land Co.

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

  1. ““The state of California has the power to exclude foreign insurance companies altogether from her territory, whether they were formed for the purpose of doing a Are or a marine business. She has the power, if she allows any such companies to enter her eonAnes, to determine the conditions on which the entry shall be made. And, as a necessary consequence of her possession of these powers, she has the right to enforce any conditions imposed by her laws as preliminary to the transaction of business within her eonAnes by a foreign corporation, whether the business is to be carried on through officers or through ordinary agents of the company, and she has also the further right to prohibit a citizen from contracting within her jurisdiction with any foreign company which has not acquired the privilege of engaging in business therein, either in his own behalf or through an agent empowered to that end. The power to exclude embraces the power to regulate, to enact and enforce all legislation in regard to things done within the territory of the state which may be directly or incidentally requisite in order to render the enforcement of the conceded power efficacious to the fullest extent, subject always, of course, to the paramount authority of the constitution of the United States.””
    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.