Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 17 NY 210 - Mead v. . Mitchell

Mead v. . Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1858

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
December 1971
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1971 · most notably McArthur v. Scott (1885), In Re the Estate of Fair (1901)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 13 states

1001858186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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

  1. “£ ‘ In the English Court of Chancery the general rule is that in actions affecting the title to land it is sufficient to bring before the court the person entitled to the first estate of inheritance with those claiming prior interests, omitting those who might claim in remainder or reversion after such vested estate of inheritance (Calv. on Parties 48; Mitf. Pleadings 173). A decree against the person having the first estate of inheritance would bind those in remainder or reversion, although the estate might afterwards vest in possession. Indeed, it was improper to make parties thus remotely interested parties to the action, and thus put them to the trouble of litigating a matter in which they might never have any interest. It was a rule, therefore, which had been adopted, as it was said, partly from necessity and partly on considerations of convenience. (Calv., 51; 2 Spence Eq. Jur. 707; Story Eq. Pl., sec. 144).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.