Barrow Co v. Kane’s Empirical Analysis
170 U.S. 100 · 1898
Citation profile
134 federal appellate · 76 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 489 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. (1952), Moor v. County of Alameda (1973)
134 federal appellate · 76 district · 59 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Smyth v. Ames · Huntington v. Attrill · Lincoln County v. Luning · Goldey v. Morning News · Ex Parte Shaw
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 489 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The constant tendency of judicial decisions in modern times has been in the direction of putting corporations upon the same footing as natural persons In regard to the jurisdiction of suits by or against them.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“’.- “That when in any suit, commenced in any circuit court of the United States to enforce any legal or equitable lien upon, or claim to, or to remove -:-kny incumbrance or lien or cloud upon the title to real or personal property ••.-.within .the district where such suit is brought, one or more of the defendants .< therein shall not be an inhabitant of, or found within, said district, or shall '.-not'voluntarily appear thereto, it shall be lawful for the court to make an order directing such absent defendant or defendants to appear, plead, answer, or demur, by a day certain to be designated, which order shall be served on -'..suchrábsent defendant or defendants, If practicable, wherever found, and also upon the person or persons in possession or charge of said property, if any there be.” Act March 3, 1875, c. 137, § 8.”
2 later decisions 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.