Waskey v. Hammer’s Empirical Analysis
179 F. 273 · 1910
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017
10 federal appellate · 1 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 Bronson v. Schulten · Ewing v. Thompson · Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Louisville Trust Co. · Waskey v. Hammer · Reynolds v. Manhattan Trust Co.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Very many English as well as American authorities are quoted in Patchin v. City of Brooklyn, 13 Wend. 664 , 1835 WL 2569 (1835). There are very many others, all holding a common-law writ of certiorari, whether issued before or after judgment, to be in effect a superse-deas. There are none to the contrary. In some of them it is ruled that action by the inferior court after the service of the writ is erroneous; in others it is stated to be void and punishable as a contempt. They all, however, assert no more than that the power of the tribunal to which the writ is directed is suspended by it, that the judicial proceedings can proceed no farther in the lower court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brewer v. Quarterman“But it is to be remembered that the writ of certiorari is of itself and proprio vig-ore a supersedeas. Neither the inferior court nor the officer holding the process of such inferior court can rightfully proceed after formal notice of its having been issued. Every act done after such notice is not only irregular, but absolutely void; and the parties doing such acts are trespassers.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brewer v. Quarterman
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.