Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 U.S. 51 - Joseph Swift v. Donald a McPherson

Joseph Swift v. Donald a McPherson’s Empirical Analysis

232 U.S. 51 · 1914

Citation profile

116
cited by 116 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

63 federal appellate · 9 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 116 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2013 · most notably Costello v. United States (1961), Johnson v. Williams (2013)

63 federal appellate · 9 district · 32 state decisions

21019141920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Hughes v. United States · Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Vicksburg v. W a Henson · Mitchell v. St. Maxent's Lessee · McPherson v. Swift

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

  1. ““Ordinarily, such a question is answered by a mere inspection of the decree —the presumption being that a dismissal in equity, without qualifying words, is a final decision on the merits. That presumption of finality, however, disappears whenever the record shows that the court did not pass upon the merits, but dismissed the bill because of a want of jurisdiction, for want of parties, because the suit was brought prematurely, because the plaintiff had a right to file a subsequent bill on the same subject-matter, or on any other ground not going , to the merits. The scope of such decree must in all cases be measured, not only by the allegations of the bill, but by the ground of the demurrer or motion on which the dismissal was based. Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 232 , 237; Mayor of Vicksburg v. Henson, 231 U. S. 259 .””
    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.