King v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis
1819
Citation profile
1 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1947 · most notably Davis v. Wakelee (1895), Benjamin Humphreys v. Leggett Smith and Lawrence (1850)
1 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 20 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.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I consider it an established principle that where a court of equity once had jurisdiction it will insist on retaining it, though the original ground of jurisdiction—the inability of the party to recover at law—no longer exists. Í Madd. 23. In Atkinson v. Leonard, 3 Brown, Ch. 218, Lord Thurlow said: ‘It did not follow, because a court of law will give relief, that this court loses the concurrent jurisdiction it has always had; and, till the law is clear on the subject, the court would not do justice in refusing to entertain the jurisdiction.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shainwald v. Lewis
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.