Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 U.S. 192 - McCormick v. Sullivant

McCormick v. Sullivant’s Empirical Analysis

23 U.S. 192 · 1825

Citation profile

230
cited by 230 later decisions
36
cited 36 times by the Supreme Court
26
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 6 district · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 230 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2018 · most notably Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank (1940), Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892)

70 federal appellate · 6 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 26 states

35018251830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Turner v. Bank of North America · Mossman, Surviving v. Higginson, Surviving Partner · Kerr v. Devisees of a Moon

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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[.The argument] proceeds upon an incorrect view of the character and jurisdiction of the inferior court of the United States. They are all of limited jurisdiction ; but they are not on that account inferior courts, in the technical sense of those words, whose judgments, taken alone, are to be disregarded. If the jurisdiction be not alleged in the proceedings, their judgments and decrees are erroneous, and may, upon a writ of error or appeal, be reversed for that cause. But they are not absolute nullities.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The Orphans’ Court, as established in this state, is not a tribunal of general jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction does not extend to all persons nor to every subject matter. In this sense its jurisdiction is limited. And in the same sense the courts for the trial of small causes, the Court of Common Pleas, and even the Circuit Court of the United States, are courts of limited jurisdiction. But they are not, in the technical sense of the term, inferior courts or courts of special jurisdiction, whose proceedings are subject to the narrowest rules of construction, and whose judgments will be deemed invalid for every irregularity apparent in their proceedings.... [at 121]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.