Bowker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
186 U.S. 135 · 1902
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1975 · most notably United States v. Shaw (1940), Cold Metal Process Company v. United Engineering & Foundry Company (1956)
36 federal appellate · 10 district · 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 McLish v. Roff · Holgate v. Eaton · Eli Ayres v. Hiram Carver · Southern Railway Company v. Postal Telegraph-Cable 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The cross libel and the answer to the libel were consistent, the subject-matter of the libel and the cross libel was the same, and the latter, in no proper sense, introduced new and distinct matters. The cross libel occupied the same position as a cross bill in equity, and the general rule is that the original bill and the cross bill should be heard together and disposed of by one decree, although, where the cross bill asks affirmative relief, and is therefore not a pure cross bill, the dismissal of the original bill may not dispose of the cross bill, which may be retained for a complete determination of the cause. Holgate v. Eaton, 116 U.S. 33 , 6 S.Ct. 224, 29 L.Ed. 538, illustrates this. There the bill and cross bill were heard together, and it was held that the original bill must be dismissed, but that relief might be accorded on the cross bill. The cross bill was not filed merely as a means of defense, but of obtaining affirmative relief, and the defeat of the bill sustained the disposition of the cause on the cross bill. Such might be the result here if it turned out on the hearing that the Azalea was in fault, and not the schooner, provided jurisdiction could be maintained to award relief against the United States. But in any point of view, the decree on the cross libel did not so finally dispose of the whole case as to entitle us to take jurisdiction under section 5 of the act of 1891.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In admiralty, if the respondent desires to obtain entire damages against (he libelant, or damages in excess of those claimed by libelant, a cross-libel is necessary, although matters of recoupment or counterclaim might bo asserted in the answer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“incidental to and dependent upon the original suit”
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.