Albert Shulthis v. D a McDougal’s Empirical Analysis
225 U.S. 561 · 1912
Citation profile
320 federal appellate · 131 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 896 later decisions (148 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Weinberger v. Salfi (1975), Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian (1936)
320 federal appellate · 131 district · 20 state decisions
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
reviewedShulthis v. McDougal (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Shively v. Bowlby · Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank · Smith v. Truman Reeves
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 896 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A suit to enforce a right which takes its origin in the laws of the United States is not necessarily, or for that reason alone, one arising under those laws, for a suit does not so arise unless it really and substantially involves a dispute or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of such a law, upon the determination of which the result depends.”
39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a controversy in respect of lands has never been regarded as presenting a Federal question merely because one of the parties to it has derived his title under an act of Congress.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is not enough that grounds of jurisdiction other than diverse citizenship may be inferred argumentatively from the statements in the bill, for jurisdiction cannot rest on any ground that is not affirmatively and distinctly set forth.” Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U.S. 561 , 569, 32 S.Ct. 704 , 706, 56 L.Ed. 1205 .”
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.