Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 198 U.S. 188 - Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & Georgia Manufacturing Co.

Riverdale Cotton Mills v. Alabama & Georgia Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

198 U.S. 188 · 1905

Citation profile

142
cited by 142 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 17 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 142 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably Local Loan Co. v. Hunt (1934), Toucey v. New York Life Insurance (1941)

69 federal appellate · 17 district · 15 state decisions

290190519101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedAlabama & G. Mfg. Co. v. Riverdale Cotton Mills (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Cole v. Cunningham · Julian v. Central Trust Co. · Root v. Woolworth · Lehigh Nin Manuf'G Co v. Kelly · Muller v. Dows

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

  1. ““A federal court, exercising a jurisdiction apparently belonging to It, may thereafter, by ancillary suit, inquire whether that jurisdiction in fact existed, rt may protect the title which it has decreed as against every one a party to the original suit, and prevent that party from relitigating the questions of right which have already been determined.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * a And when it seemed that at last litigation was at an end, the foreclosure consummated, and the title established in the purchaser, we are told that it all amounted to nothing; that parties, lawyers, and courts have been spending their time and labor in simply beating the air, the title to the property conveyed by the trust deed being exactly where it was before the litigation commenced, and the'party which had acquired possession by that litigation subject to an obligation to account as a mortgagee in possession.””
    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.