In the Matter of the Indiana Transportation Company’s Empirical Analysis
244 U.S. 456 · 1917
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2004 · most notably Shaffer v. Carter (1920), North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Hall Bros. Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co. (1919)
14 federal appellate · 8 district · 25 state decisions
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 The Oregon · Reynolds v. Stockton · Harkness v. Hyde · Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The foundation of jurisdiction is physical power. If a defendant’s body were in custody by arrest, or a vessel were held by proceedings in rem, it well might be that new claims would be entertained against the person or against the ship, in addition to those upon which the arrest was made. The Oregon, 158 U. S. 186, 210 [, 15 S.Ct. 804 , 39 L.Ed. 943 ]. But appearance in answer to a citation does not bring a defendant under the general physical power of the court. He is not supposed even by fiction, to be in prison. Conventional effect is given to a decree after an appearance because when power once has been manifested, it is to the advantage of all not to insist upon its being maintained to the end. Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346, 353 [, 33 S.Ct. 550 , 57 L.Ed. 867 ]. That, however, is the limit of the court’s authority. Not having any power in fact over the defendant unless it can seize him again, it cannot introduce new claims of new claimants into an existing suit simply because the defendant has appeared in that suit. The new claimants are strangers and must begin their action by service just as if no one had sued the defendant before. The Oregon, 158 U.S. 186, 205, 210 [, 15 S.Ct. 804 , 39 L.Ed. 943 ]. We may repeat with more force concerning defendants what was said alio intuito in a New Jersey case cited in Reynolds v. Stockton, 140 U.S. 254, 268 [, 11 S. Ct. 773 , 35 L.Ed. 464 ], ‘Persons by becoming suitors do not place themselves for all purposes under ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Persons, by becoming suitors, do not place themselves, for all purposes, under the control of the court.”
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.