Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia’s Empirical Analysis
2 U.S. 419 · 1793
Citation profile
181 federal appellate · 61 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 652 later decisions (104 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), Edelman v. Jordan (1974)
181 federal appellate · 61 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 25 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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 Anonymous · Vanstophorst v. Maryland
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 652 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“between a State and Citizens of another State”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“None of the authorities cited under this subdivision of the opposing argument hold that the judicial power of the United States does not embrace the authority to entertain a suit brought by a citizen against his own state, where the State has consented to such suit. * * * "We urge that it is a sound construction of the Federal Employers Liability Act, when considered in the light of Supreme Court decisions concerning the Safety Appliance Acts and the Railway Labor Act, that Congress has prohibited any entity, state or private, from engaging in business as an interstate common carrier railroad, without consenting to be sued in a United States District Court under the Federal Employers Liability Act. * * * "As we see it, if the Constitution of the State of Alabama authorizes the operation of this railroad, then it is subject to all the provisions of the Federal Employers Liability Act. Liability under the Act can be avoided only if the State is acting unconstitutionally by operating the Terminal Railway of Alabama State Docks.”
9 later decisions 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.