Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 189 U.S. 64 - Tennessee v. Condon

Tennessee v. Condon’s Empirical Analysis

189 U.S. 64 · 1903

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 3 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Poe v. Ullman (1961), San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper (1903)

11 federal appellate · 3 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 14 states

160190319101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Mills v. Green · Condon v. Maloney · State v. Lindsay · State ex rel. Rambo v. Maloney

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

  1. ““The duty of this court,- as of every other judicial tribunal, is to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the ease before it.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““There are cases in quo warranto in which judgment of ouster has been entered, although the term of the person lawfully entitled had expired, and also where informations have been retained, when the statute provided for fine or damages; but here the proceeding cannot now be maintained as on behalf of the public; and, considered, as counsel insists it should be, as merely a contest between two sets of officials, and not between tbe state and its officials, tbe state courts would be at liberty to treat it as abated, and tbe mere matter of costs cannot be availed of to sustain jurisdiction.””
    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.