Western Life Indemnity Company of Illinois v. Clarence Rupp’s Empirical Analysis
235 U.S. 261 · 1914
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Hansberry v. Lee (1940), Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts (1985)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 18 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.
Relationships
Relies on Pennoyer v. Neff · Davidson v. New Orleans · Goldey v. Morning News · Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Southern Pac Co v. Denton
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a special appearance entered for the purpose of objecting that the trial court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A nonresident party against whom a personal action is instituted in a state court without service of process upon him may, if he please, ignore the proceeding as wholly ineffective, and set up its invalidity if and when an attempt is made to take his property thereunder, or when he is sued upon it in the same or another jurisdiction. Pennoyer v. Neff, 93 U. S. 714 , 732, 733 [ 24 L. Ed. 565 ]; York v. Texas, 137 U. S. 15 , 21 [ 11 Sup. Ct. 9 , 34 L. Ed. 604 ], But if he desires to raise the question of the validity of the proceedings in the court in which it is instituted, so as to avoid even the semblance of a judgment against him, it is within the power of the state to declare that he shall do this subject to the risk of being' obliged to submit to the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the merits, if the objection raised to its jurisdiction over his person shall be overruled. This prevents a defendant from doing what plaintiff in error has attempted to do in the present case — -that is, to secure, jf possible, the benefit of a binding adjudication in its favor upon the merits, through the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction, while depriving its adversary of any possibility of success by reserving an objection to the jurisdiction of the court to render any judgment against it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Fourteenth Amendment declares that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This prohibition has regard not to matters of form, but to substance of right. Since its adoption, whatever was the rule before, a non-resident party against whom a personal action is instituted in a state court without service of process upon him may, if he please, ignore the proceeding as wholly ineffective, and set up its invalidity if and when an attempt is made to take his property thereunder, or when he is sued upon it in the same or another jurisdiction.”
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.