Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 U.S. 380 - Doe v. Winn

Doe v. Winn’s Empirical Analysis

24 U.S. 380 · 1826

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
March 1951
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1951 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad (1893)

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 19 states

14018261830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 Lessee v. Wendell

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

  1. ““We may therefore assume as the settled doctrine of this court that if a patent is absolutely void upon its face, or the issuing thereof was without authority, or was prohibited by statute, or if the state had no title, it could be impeached collaterally in a court of law in an action of ejectment; but, in general, other objections and defects complained of must be put in issue in a regular course of pleading in a direct proceeding to avoid the patent.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But tliore aro some things so essential to the validity of the contract that the great principles of justice and of law would he violated, did there not exist some tribunal to which an injured party might appeal, and in which the means by which an elder title was acquired might he examined. * * * But tuero are cases in which a grant is absolutely void, as where the state has no title to the thing granted, or where an ofiicer lmd no authority to issue the grant. In such cases the validity of the grant is necessarily examinable at law.””
    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.