Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 165 U.S. 359 - Robinson v. Caldwell

Robinson v. Caldwell’s Empirical Analysis

165 U.S. 359 · 1897

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
27
cited 27 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2003 · most notably Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co. (1921), Ex parte Republic of Peru (1943)

6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

380189719001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank · McLish v. Roff · Chappell v. United States · Chappell v. Waterworth · United States v. Jahn

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

  1. ““Undoubtedly, where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depends solely on diverse citizenship, and it turns out that the case involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States, or the constitutionality of a law of the United States or the validity or construction of a treaty is drawn in question, or the Constitution or law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, the Circuit Court of Appeals may certify the constitutional or treaty question up, and proceed as thereupon advised, or may decide the whole case; but language should not have been used susceptible of the meaning that, in cases where the jurisdiction below is invoked on the ground of diverse citizenship, the Circuit Court of Appeals might decline to take jurisdiction, or, in other words, might dismiss the appeal or writ of error for want of jurisdiction. The mere fact that in such a case one or more of the constitutional questions have so arisen that a direct resort to this court might be had does not deprive the Circuit Court of Appeals of jurisdiction, or justify it in declining to exercise it.””
    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.