Scott v. Donald’s Empirical Analysis
165 U.S. 107 · 1897
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 59 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 281 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949)
75 federal appellate · 59 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Ex Parte Tyler · Poindexter v. Greenhow · Pennoyer v. McConnaughy · Cummings v. National Bank
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 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Such statements sufficiently concede that the pecuniary value of plaintiff's rights in controversy exceed the value of two thousand dollars. Nor can it be reasonably claimed that th£ plaintiff must postpone his application to the Circuit Court, as a'court of equity, until his property to an amount exceeding in value two thousand dollars has been actually seized and confiscated, and when the preventive remedy by injunction would be of no avail.” Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 107 , 17 Sup. Ct. 262 , 41 L. Ed. 648 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The objections to proceeding against state officers by injunction are that it is, in effect, a proceeding against the state itself, and it interferes with the official discretion vested in the officers. The answer to such objections is found in a long line of decisions of this court. Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 22 U. S. (9 Wheat.) 739, 6 L. Ed. 204 ; Dodge v. Woolsey, 59 U. S. (18 How.) 331, 15 L. Ed. 401 ; Louisiana Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531 , 23 L. Ed. 623 ; Cummings v. Merchants’ Nat. Bank, 101 U. S. 153 , 25 L. Ed. 903 ; Memphis & L. R. R. Co. v. Berry, 112 U. S. 609 , 5 Sup. Ct. 299 , 28 L. Ed. 837 ; Poindexter v. Greenhow (Va. Coupon Cases) 114 U. S. 295 , 5 Sup. Ct. 903 , 29 L. Ed. 194 ; Allen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 114 U. S. 315 , 5 Sup. Ct. 925 , 29 L. Ed. 201 ; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1 , 11 Sup. Ct. 699 , 35 L. Ed. 363 ; Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10 , 16 Sup. Ct. 443 , 40 L. Ed. 599 , 602.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Snell statements sufficiently concede that the pecuniary value of plaintiff’s rights in controversy exceed the value of $2,000. Xor can it be reasonably claimed that the plaintiff must postpone his application to the Circuit Court, as á court of equity, until his property to an amount exceeding in value $2,000 has been actually seized and confiscated, and when the preventive remedy by injunction would be of no avail.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Larabee v. Dolley
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.