Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 U.S. 533 - Manson v. Duncanson

Manson v. Duncanson’s Empirical Analysis

166 U.S. 533 · 1897

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
October 1995
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 6 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1995 · most notably Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co. (1904), Fayerweather v. Ritch (1904)

24 federal appellate · 6 district · 16 state decisions

15018971900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Cooper v. Reynolds · Nichols Assignee v. Eaton et al. · Kerrison Assignee v. Stewart et al. · Cornett v. Williams

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

  1. ““.Turisdietion is ¡lie power to hear and determine. To make tlie order of sale required the exercise of this power. It was the business and duty of the cénit to ascertain and decide whether the facts were such as called for that action. The question always arises in such proceedings, and muse be determined, whether, upon the case as presented, afiirniative or negative action is proper. The power to review and reverso the decision so made is clearly appellate in its character, and can be exercised only by an appellate tribunal in a proceeding had directly for that purpose. It cannot and ought not to he done by another court, in another ease, whore the subject is presented incidentally, and a reversal sought in such collateral proceeding. The settled rule of law is that, jurisdiction having attached in the original case, everything done within the power of that jurisdiction, when collaterally questioned, is to be held conclusive of the rights of the parties, unless impeached for fraud. Every intendment is made to support the proceeding. It is regarded as if it were regular in all things, and irreversible for error. In the absence of fraud, no question can be collaterally entertained as to anything lying within the jurisdictional sphere of the original case. Infinite confusion and mischiefs would ensue if the rule were otherwise. These remarks apply to the order of sale here in question.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ It is certainly the policy of the law to maintain judicial sales, and every reasonable inducement should be indulged to uphold them, otherwise the public would become distrustful, and fair prices for property sold under judicial authority would seldom be obtained. Purchasers, while they are required to take notice of the existence and terms of the decrees of judgments under which they purchase, and as to the parties bound thereby, cannot be required to become judicial critics, and to pass in review, at their peril, upon the correctness of the proceedings upon which the judgments and decrees may be founded.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is of no avail, therefore, to show that there are errors in that record, unless they be such as prove that the court had no jurisdiction of the case, or that the judgment rendered was beyond its power. This principle has been often held 'by this court, and by all courts, and it takes rank as an axiom of the law.” Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308 , 316, 19 L.Ed. 931 .”
    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.