Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis
215 U.S. 33 · 1909
Citation profile
435 federal appellate · 159 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 945 later decisions (51 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably McClellan v. Carland (1910), State of Georgia v. Pennsylvania R Co (1945)
435 federal appellate · 159 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
Relationships
Relies on Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. · Watson v. Jones · William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Byers v. McAuley
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 945 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] citizen of another state may establish a debt against the estate [through an action in federal court]. But the debt thus established must take its place and share of the estate as administered by the probate court; and it cannot be enforced by process directly against the property of the decedent. In like manner, a distributee, citizen of another state, may establish his right to a share in the estate, and enforce such adjudication against the administrator personally, or his sureties; or against any other parties subject to liability, or in any other way which does not disturb the possession of the property by the state court.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is to be presumed that the probate court will respect any adjudication which might be made in settling the rights of parties in this suit in the Federal court. It has been frequently held in this court that a judgment of a Federal court awarding property or rights, when set up in a state court, if its effect is denied, presents a claim of Federal right which may be protected in this court.” 215 U.S. at 46 , 30 S.Ct. at 13 , 54 L.Ed. 80 .”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The relation of an indispensable party to the suit must be such that no decree can be entered in the case which will do justice between the parties actually before the court without injuriously affecting the rights of such absent party.””
6 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.