Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co.’s Empirical Analysis
170 U.S. 468 · 1898
Citation profile
72 federal appellate · 25 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 206 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2006 · most notably McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (1936), St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co (1938)
72 federal appellate · 25 district · 18 state decisions
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 Barry v. Edmunds · Bauserman v. Blunt · Watson v. Sutherland · Wilson v. Daniel
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 206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In determining from the face of a pleading whether the amount really in dispute is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a court of the United States, it is settled that if, from the nature of the case as stated in the pleadings, there could not legally be a judgment for an amount necessary to the jurisdiction, jurisdiction cannot attach, even though the damages be laid in the declaration at a larger sum. Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U.S. 550, 560 , 6 S.Ct. 501 [ 29 L.Ed. 729 ]; Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401, 407 [ 1 L.Ed. 655 ].” (Emphasis supplied.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As, however, by way of damages in an action of this character, recovery was only allowable for the actual damage caused by the detention, and- could not embrace a cause of damage which was not, in legal contemplation, the proximate result of the wrongful detention, and such recovery was confined, as we have seen, to interest on the value of the property, it results that there was nothing in the damages alleged in the petition, and properly recoverable, adequate, when added to the value of the property, to have conferred upon the court jurisdiction to have entertained a consideration of the suit. Upon the face of the com.plaint, therefore, the circuit court was without jurisdiction over the action * * (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if, from the nature of the case as stated in the pleadings, there could not legally be a judgment for an amount necessary to the jurisdiction, jurisdiction cannot attach.”
3 later decisions 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.