Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 U.S. 555 - Cooper v. Newell

Cooper v. Newell’s Empirical Analysis

173 U.S. 555 · 1899

Citation profile

142
cited by 142 later decisions
21
cited 21 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
April 2004
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 8 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 142 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2004 · most notably Angel v. Bullington (1947), Baldwin v. Ionwa State Traveling Men's Ass'n (1931)

34 federal appellate · 8 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 11 states

420189919001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Pennoyer v. Neff · Goldey v. Morning News · Thompson v. Whitman · Galpin v. Page · Arndt v. Griggs

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

  1. ““In Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457 [ 21 L.Ed. 897 ], a leading case in this court, it was ruled that ‘neither the constitutional provision that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, nor the act of congress passed in pursuance thereof, prevents an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court by which a judgment offered in evidence was rendered’ ; that ‘the record of a judgment rendered in another state may be contradicted as to the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction; and, if it be shown that such facts did not exist, the record will be a nullity, notwithstanding it may recite that they did exist’; and that ‘want of jurisdiction may be shown, either as to the subject-matter or the person, or, in proceedings in rem, as to the thing.’ “But, while these propositions are conceded, it is insisted that the circuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Texas was bound to treat this judgment, rendered by one of the courts of the state of Texas, as if it were strictly a domestic judgment drawn in question in one of those courts, and to hold that it therefore could not be assailed collaterally.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. . . the courts of the United States are tribunals of a different sovereignty, and exercise a distinct and independent jurisdiction from that exercised by the state courts, and this is true in respect of the courts of the several States as between each other. And the courts of the United States are bound to give to the judgments of the state courts the same faith and credit that the courts of one State are bound to give to the judgments of the courts of her sister States.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Was the judgment of the district court of Brazoria county, Tex. (said court being a court of general jurisdiction), in the case of Peter McGreal v. Stuart Newell, subject to collateral attack in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern Distinct of Texas, sitting in the same territory in which said district court sat, in this suit, between a citizen of the state of. New York and a citizen of the state of Texas, by evidence aliunde the record of the state court, showing that the defendant Stuart New-ell, in said suit in said state court, was not a resident of the state of Texas at the time the suit was brought, nor a citizen of said state, but a resident citizen of another state, and that he was not cited to appear in said suit, and that he did not have any knowledge of said suit, and that he did not in fact appear in said suit, and that he did not authorize J. A. Swett, the attorney who purported to appear for him in said suit, to make any such appearance, and that the appearance by said attorney was made without his knowledge or consent?””
    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.