Thomas v. Board of Trustees of the Ohio State University’s Empirical Analysis
195 U.S. 207 · 1904
Citation profile
133 federal appellate · 42 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 297 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986), Bender v. Williamsport Area School District (1986)
133 federal appellate · 42 district · 5 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Powers v. Chesapeake O Ry Co · Great Southern Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones · Gerling v. Baltimore Ohio R Co · Minnesota v. Northern Securities 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 297 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is equally well established that when jurisdiction depends upon diverse citizenship the absence of sufficient averments or of facts in the record showing such required diversity of citizenship is fatal and cannot be overlooked by the court, even if the parties fail to call attention to the defect, or consent that it may be waived.” 195 U.S. at 211 , 25 S.Ct. at 25 , 49 L.Ed. at 164 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The jurisdiction of a Circuit Court of the United States is limited in the sense that it has no jurisdiction except that conferred by the Constitution and laws of the United States; that a cause is presumed to be without its jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears; that such jurisdiction, or the facts upon which in legal intendment it rests, must be distinctly and positively averred in the pleadings or should appear affirmatively and with equal distinctness in other parts of the record; it not being sufficient that jurisdiction may be inferred argumentatively.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To the rule, thus established by numerous decisions, the court adheres. Upon this branch of the case it is therefore only necessary to say that if the individual members of a corporation, created by the laws of one of the United States, are, for the purposes of suit by or against it in the courts of the Union, conclusively presumed to be citizens of the state by whose laws that corporation is created and exists, it would seem to follow, logically, that the members of a corporation, created by the laws of a foreign State, should, for like purposes, be conclusively presumed to be citizens or subjects of such foreign State. Consequently, a corporation of a foreign State is, for purposes of jurisdiction in the courts of the United States, to be deemed, constructively, a citizen or subject of such state.””
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.