Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 U.S. 447 - Pullman Co. v. Knott

Pullman Co. v. Knott’s Empirical Analysis

243 U.S. 447 · 1917

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 1976
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1976

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

501917192019301940195019601970decided

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 New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank · Warner Valley Stock Company v. Smith · United States Bernardin v. Butterworth · Richardson v. McChesney · United States v. Boutwell

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

  1. ““The case upon which the subsequent decisions are rested is United States v. Boutwell, 17 Wall. 604 . In that case the rule and the reasons for it were stated by the Court. That was a suit for mandamus against the Secretary of the Treasury, and involved the right to substitute the successor of the Secretary, his term of office having expired since the suit was commenced. The court held that the right to a writ of mandamus ceased to exist upon the defendant retiring from the office of Secretary, and that in the absence of a statute the writ mustneces sarily abate. The court further held that the duty sought to be enforced was a personal one, and existed only so long as the office was held; that the court could not compel the defendant to perform such duty after his power so to do had ceased; that if the successor in office could be substituted he might be mulcted in costs for the fault of his predecessor, without any delinquency of his own; and that were a demand made upon him he might discharge the duty rendering the interposition of a court unnecessary, and, in any event, the successor was not in privity with his predecessor, nor was he his personal representative. ( 17 Wall. 604, 607, 608 ).” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    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.