Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 U.S. 277 - Patch v. Wabash Railroad

Patch v. Wabash Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

207 U.S. 277 · 1907

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 20 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2007 · most notably Freeman v. Bee Machine Co. (1943), Puerto Rico v. Russell & Co. (1933)

32 federal appellate · 20 district · 12 state decisions

21019071910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Paul v. Virginia · Lafayette Insurance v. French · Morris v. Gilmer · Anderson v. Watt

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

  1. ““Therefore the question is raised how a corporation or corporations thus organized shall be regarded for the purposes of a suit like this. No nice speculation as to whether the corporation is one or many, and no details as to the particulars of the consolidation,. are needed for an answer. The defendant exists in Illinois by virtue of the laws of Illinois. It is alleged to have incurred a liability under the laws of the same state, and is sued in that state. It cannot escape the jurisdiction by the fact that it is incorporated elsewhere. The assent of the state to such incorporation elsewhere, supposing it to have been given,— a matter upon which we express no opinion, —cannot be presumed to have intended or to import such a change. This seems to be , the opinion of the supreme court of Illinois, as it certainly has been shown to be that of this court. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270 , 20 L.Ed. 571 ; Muller v. Dows, 94 U.S. 444 , 24 L.Ed. 207 ; Memphis & Charleston R. R. Co. v. Alabama, 107 U.S. 581 , 2 S.Ct. 432 , 27 L.Ed. 518 ; Quincy Railroad Bridge Co. v. County of Adams, 88 Ill. 615 ; Winn v. Wabash R. Co. [C.C.] 118 F. 55 . What would be the law in case of a suit brought in Illinois upon a cause of action which arose in Ohio is a question that may be left on one side, as also may be the decisions in cases where a corporation originally created in one state afterwards becomes compulsorily a corporation of another state for some purposes in order t”
    2 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.