Woodruff v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1847
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Windsor v. McVeigh (1876), Sands v. Sands (1982)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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.
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A proceeding professing to determine the right of property, where no notice written or constructive, is given, whatever else it might be called, would not be entitled to be dignified with the name of a judicial proceeding. It would be a mere arbitrary edict, not to be regarded anywhere as the judgment of a court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. The J. W. French“is, not that this or that person shall pay a sum of money, or do any particular act, but that the instrument is, or is not,”
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.