Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 U.S. 526 - Spencer v. W

Spencer v. W’s Empirical Analysis

191 U.S. 526 · 1903

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
32
cited 32 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 1983
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1983 · most notably Albert Shulthis v. D a McDougal (1912), Slocum v. New York Life Insurance (1913)

17 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions

250190319101920193019401950196019701980decided

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

reviewedDuplan Silk Co. v. Spencer (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on The Conqueror · Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank · Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Chappell v. United States · Horner v. United States

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

  1. ““Plaintiff’s declaration set forth no matter raising any controversy under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. It is true that, if the lumber and materials belonged to Bennett & Rothrock on January 13, 1900, plaintiff in error succeeded to the title of the firm on the adjudication; but the question of Bennett & Rothroek’s ownership on that day in itself involved no. federal controversy, and the mere fact that the plaintiff was trustee in bankruptcy did not give jurisdiction. Bardes v. First Nat. Bank, 178 U. S. 324 [ 20 Sup. Ct. 1000 , 44 L. Ed. 1175 ]. Indeed, if the case had not been removed, and had gone to judgment in the court of common pleas, and that judgment had been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania on the game grounds as those on which the Circuit Court of Appeals proceeded, a writ of error could not have been brought under section 709 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 575), for the case would not have fallen within either of the classes enumerated in that section as the basis of our jurisdiction. The validity of the bankruptcy act was conceded, and no right specially set up or claimed under it was denied. Section 23 of the bankruptcy law does not enable us to maintain jurisdiction. The first two clauses read (before the amendment of February 5, 1903, 32 Stat. 797 , c. 487 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1903, p. 413]) as follows: “ ‘Sec. 23a. The United States Circuit Courts shall have jurisdiction of all controversies at la”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Any suit of a civil nature, at law or in equity, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, of which the District Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction by this title, which may now be pending or which may hereafter be brought, in any state court, may be removed by the defendant or defendants therein to the district court of the United States for the proper district.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ a The United States circuit courts shall have jurisdiction of all controversies at law and in equity, as distinguished from proceedings in bankruptcy, ' between trustees as such and adverse claimants concerning the property acquired or claimed by the trustees, in the same manner and to the same extent only as though bankruptcy proceedings had not been instituted and such controversies had been between the bankrupts and such adverse claimants.”
    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.