Whiteside v. Norton’s Empirical Analysis
205 F. 5 · 1913
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 1988
7 federal appellate · 7 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
Relationships
Relies on Hardin v. Jordan · Whitehead v. Shattuck · Scranton v. Wheeler · Gibson v. United States · Barney v. Keokuk
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is also urged that * * * because this is an action in rem, and the land in the state of Wisconsin, the Minnesota court is without jurisdiction for that reason. These contentions raise questions of serious moment; but, in view of the conclusion reached upon the merits of the controversy, it is deemed unnecessary to extend this discussion further.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was without jurisdiction, for the reason that the land in controversy is in the state and district of Wisconsin, and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the federal court sitting in Minnesota.”
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.