John Mackay v. Unita Development Company’s Empirical Analysis
229 U.S. 173 · 1913
Citation profile
83 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Pegram v. Herdrich (2000), Pegram v. Herdrich (2000)
83 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Powers v. Chesapeake O Ry Co
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[r]emoval proceedings are in the nature of process to bring the parties before the United States court.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“regardless of the manner in which the case was brought or how the attendance of the parties in the United States Court was secured, there was presented to the Circuit Court a controversy between citizens of different States in which the amount claimed by one non-resident was more than $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs. As the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter the parties could have been realigned by making Mackay plaintiff and the Development Company defendant, if that had been found proper. But if there was any irregularity in docketing the case or in the order of the pleadings such an irregularity was waivable and neither it nor the method of getting the parties before the court operated to deprive it of the power to determine the cause.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“What took place in the state court may ... be disregarded by the court because it was waived by the parties, and regardless of ... how the attendance of the parties in the United States Court was secured, there was presented to the ... court a controversy between citizens of different states in which the amount claimed ... was more than [the jurisdictional amount]. As the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter, the parties could have been realigned ... if that had been found proper.”
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.