Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 22 U.S. 537 - Mullen v. Torrance

Mullen v. Torrance’s Empirical Analysis

22 U.S. 537 · 1824

Citation profile

555
cited by 555 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

150 federal appellate · 64 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 555 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co (1938)

150 federal appellate · 64 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 13 states

1630182418301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Turner v. Bank of North America · Montalet v. Murray · Young v. Bryan

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

  1. “the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.”
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It does not suffice to defeat subject matter jurisdiction that the success of the attempted remedies becomes clear months or even weeks after the suit is filed. Subject matter jurisdiction “depends on the state of things at the time of the action brought”; if it existed when the suit was brought, “subsequent events” cannot “oust[ ]” the court of jurisdiction.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by, the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
    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.