Clara Wheeler v. City and County of Denver K C’s Empirical Analysis
229 U.S. 342 · 1913
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2021 · most notably E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. v. Accident & Casualty Insurance (1998), Schilling v. Belcher (1978)
27 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on Blair v. City of Chicago · City and County of Denver v. New York Trust Company No 642 City and County of Denver · City of Chicago v. Mills · Cashman v. Amador & Sacramento Canal 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There was a cause of aetion inj Cash-man; there was a disability on the part of the county to sue in the Federal court in its own name. So far there is resemblance to the ease at bar, but there are material differences between the agreement in that case and the agreement between the parties in this. The county was to pay the expenses, engage counsel and indemnify Cashman against all charges and expenses, and he stipulated ‘not to compromise, dismiss or settle the said suit without the consent of the county of Sacramento, and to allow said county and the attorneys aforesaid in its behalf to manage and conduct the said suit to the same extent and in the same manner as if' such suit had been commenced by and was prosecuted in the name of the said county of Sacramento.’ It is manifest, as this eourt said, from the very beginning the suit was in reality the suit of the County, with a party plaintiff ‘eollusively made5 for the purpose of creating a ease cognizable ‘by the Circuit Court of the United States.’ In other words, as was said, the ‘dispute and controversy5 which was ‘involved’ was nominally between Cashman, an alien, and the defendants, citizens of California, but was ‘really and substantially’ between one of the counties of California and citizens of that state, and thus not ‘properly within the jurisdiction’ of the circuit court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * mere unity of interest or difference in its degrees is not enough, there must be an illegal purpose. If the interest was real and the peril which threatened was real or thought to be real, unity of interest or contribution of expenses cannot be regarded as necessarily proof of collusion. * * And the cases are numerous in which it has been decided that the motives of litigants in seeking Federal jurisdiction are immaterial.””
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.