Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson’s Empirical Analysis
223 U.S. 605 · 1912
Citation profile
376 federal appellate · 145 district · 119 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,060 later decisions (143 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Bell v. Hood (1946)
376 federal appellate · 145 district · 119 state decisions — followed in 26 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Gibbons v. Ogden · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Smyth v. Ames · United States v. Lee
Cited together with Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · United States v. Lee · Colorado v. Toll · William Truax v. Mike Raich
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 1,060 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the conduct of the defendant constitutes an unwarrantable interference with property of the complainant, its resort to equity for protection is not to be defeated upon the ground that the suit is one against the United States. The exemption of the United States from suit does not protect its officers from personal liability to persons whose rights of property they have wrongfully invaded. * * * And in case of an injury threatened by his illegal action, the officer cannot claim immunity from injunction process. * * * 25”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor is the authority of Congress limited to so much of the water of the river as flows over the bed of forty years ago. The alterations produced in the course of years by the action of the water do not restrict the exercise of Federal control in the regulation of commerce. Its bed may vary and its banks may change, but the Federal power remains paramount over the stream, and this control may not be defeated by the action of the State in restricting the public right of navigation within the river’s ancient lines. The public right of navigation follows the stream ... and the authority of Congress goes with it. (Citation omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is the established rule that a riparian proprietor of land bounded by a stream, the banks of which are changed by the gradual and imperceptible process of accretion or erosion, continues to hold to the stream as his boundary; if his land is increased he is not accountable for the gain, and if it is diminished he has no recourse for the loss. But where a stream suddenly and perceptibly abandons its old channel, the title is not affected and the boundary remains at the former line.” 50”
3 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.