Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 Wash. 115 - Ryan v. State

Ryan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2010 · most notably Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of Washington (1937), 112 Wash. 2d 464 - State v. Lane (1989)

24 state decisions

70193619401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Cummings v. The State of Missouri · Sturges v. Crowninshield · Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe · South Carolina v. United States · Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook

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

  1. “[t]o exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, . . . over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, . . .”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) When the land is acquired for one of the purposes within Art. I, § 8, clause 17, by purchase with consent of the state, Federal jurisdiction is exclusive in such area for all purposes; (2) when the land is acquired for one of the purposes within that clause, but other than by purchase with the consent of the state, then Federal jurisdiction is exclusive only to the extent of the purposes for which the land is held; (3) when the land is acquired for a purpose not within that clause, but by purchase with the consent of the state, then the United States has such jurisdiction over the land as may be ceded to it by the state; and (4) when the land is acquired for a purpose not within that clause, in any manner other than by purchase with the consent of the state, then the United States holds the land just as any other proprietor does, except that the land may not be taxed by the state.”
    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.