Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 U.S. 424 - William Tucker v. Leo Alexandroff

William Tucker v. Leo Alexandroff’s Empirical Analysis

183 U.S. 424 · 1902

Citation profile

268
cited by 268 later decisions
55
cited 55 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

83 federal appellate · 20 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 268 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)

83 federal appellate · 20 district · 15 state decisions

410190219101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedMotherwell v. United States ex rel. Alexandroff (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Ex parte McCardle · Underhill v. Hernandez · The Paquete Habana · United States v. Rauscher · Robertson v. Baldwin

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

  1. “acquires a personality of her own; becomes competent to contract, and is individually liable for her obligations, upon which she may ... be sued in her own name”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““On application of a consul or vice-consul of any foreign government having a treaty with the United States stipulating for the restoration of seamen deserting, made in writing, stating that the person therein named has deserted from a vessel of any such government, while in any port of the United States, and on proof by the exhibition of the register of the vessel, ship’s roll, or other official document, that the person named belonged, at the time of desertion, to the crew of such vessel, it shall be the duty of any court, judge, commissioner of any circuit court, justice, or other magistrate, having competent power, to issue warrants to cause such person to be arrested for examination. If, on examination, the facts stated are found to be true, the person arrested not being a citizen of the United States, shall be delivered up to the consul or vice-consul, to be sent back to the dominions of any such government, or, on the request and at the expense of the consul or vice-consul, shall be detained until the consul or vice-consul finds an opportunity to send him back to the dominions of any such government. No person so arrested shall be detained more than two months after his arrest: but at the end of that time shall be set at liberty, and shall not be again molested for the same cause. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “As treaties are solemn engagements entered into between independent nations for the common advancement of their interests and the interests of civilization, and as their main object is not only to avoid war and secure a lasting and perpetual peace, but to promote a friendly feeling between the people of the two countries, they should be interpreted in that broad and liberal spirit which is calculated to make for the existence of a perpetual amity, so far as it can be done without the sacrifice of individual rights or other principles of personal liberty which lie at the foundation of our jurisprudence.”
    1 later decision 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.