Standard Oil Company of Indiana v. State of Missouri’s Empirical Analysis
224 U.S. 270 · 1912
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 8 district · 111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 252 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably Snyder v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1934), BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (1996)
49 federal appellate · 8 district · 111 state decisions — followed in 22 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 Boyd v. United States · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York · Huntington v. Attrill
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 252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Federal question is whether, in that court, with such jurisdiction, the defendants were denied due process of law. Under the 14th Amendment they were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. That necessarily required that the notice and the hearing should correspond, and that the relief granted should be appropriate to that which had been heard and determined on such notice. For even if a court has original general jurisdiction criminal and civil, at law and in equity, it cannot enter a judgment which is beyond the claim asserted, or which, in its essential character, is not responsive to the cause of action on which the proceeding was based. ‘Though the court may possess jurisdiction of a cause, of the subject-matter, and of the parties, it is still limited in its modes of procedure, and in the extent and character of its judgments. It must act judicially in all things, and cannot then transcend the power conferred by the law. If, for instance, the action be upon a money demand, the court, notwithstanding its complete jurisdiction over the subject and parties, has no power to pass judgment of imprisonment in the penitentiary upon the defendant. If the action be for a libel or personal tort, the court cannot order in the case a specific performance of a contract. If the action be for the possession of real property, the court is powerless to admit in the case the probate of a will. . The judgments mentioned, given in the cases supposed, would not be merely erro”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In civil suits the pleadings should no doubt contain a prayer lor judgment so as to show that the judicial power of the court is invoked. The rules of practice also may well require that the plaintiff should indicate what, remedy he seeks. But tlie prayer does not constitute a part of the notice guaiv anteed by the Constitution. The facts stated fix the limit of the relief that can be granted. While the judgment must not go beyond that to which the plaintiff was entitled on proof of the allegations made, yet the court may grant other and different relief than that for which he prayed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor, from a Federal standpoint, is there any invalidity in the judgment because there was no statute fixing a maximum penalty, no rule for measuring damages, and no hearing.”
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.