Converse v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
224 U.S. 243 · 1912
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 30 district · 129 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 374 later decisions (96 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1991 · most notably Williams v. State of North Carolina (1942), Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt (1943)
73 federal appellate · 30 district · 129 state decisions — followed in 32 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 Huntington v. Attrill · Hale v. Allinson · Bernheimer v. Converse · Hawkins v. Glenn · William Booth v. Ferdinand Clark
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 374 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is objected that the receiver cannot bring this action, and Booth v. Clark, 17 How. 322 [ 15 L. Ed. 164 ], Hale v. Allinson, 188 U. S. 56 [ 23 Sup. Ct. 244 , 47 L. Ed. 380 ], and Great Western Mining Co. v. Harris, 198 U. S. 561 [ 25 Sup. Ct. 770 , 49 L. Ed. 1163 ], are cited and relied upon. But in each and all of these cases it was held that a chancery receiver, having no other authority than that which would arise from his appointment as such, could not maintain an action in another jurisdiction. In this case the statute confers the right upon the receiver, as a quasi assignee, and representative of the creditors, and as such vested with the authority to maintain an action. In such case we think the receiver may sue in a foreign jurisdiction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘"While the order is made conclusive as against a stockholder, even although he may not have been a party to the suit in which it was made and may not, lm\ o been notified that an assessment was contemplated, this is not a, tenable objection, for the order is not in the nature of a personal judgment against ¡he stockholder and as to him is amply sustained by the presence In that suit ol' the corporation, considering his relation to it and his contractual oMigatk'ii in respect of its debts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Each stockholder in any corporation, * * * shall be liable to the amount of stock held or owned by him.””
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.