O'Sullivan v. Felix’s Empirical Analysis
233 U.S. 318 · 1914
Citation profile
404 federal appellate · 53 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 801 later decisions (52 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Wilson v. Garcia (1985), Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (1975)
404 federal appellate · 53 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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
reviewedO'Sullivan v. Felix (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Huntington v. Attrill · Campbell v. City of Haverhill · McClaine v. Rankin · Brady v. Daly
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 801 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That the action depends upon or arises under the laws of the United States does not preclude the application of the statute of limitations of the state is established beyond controversy * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an 'elastic' term which includes 'any extraordinary liability to which the law subjects a wrongdoer in favor of the person wronged, not limited to damages suffered.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(2) If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; (3) If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing t”
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.