Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 25 U.S. 153 - Jackson v. Chew

Jackson v. Chew’s Empirical Analysis

25 U.S. 153 · 1827

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
June 1987
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1987 · most notably Erie Co v. Tompkins (1938), Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company (1987)

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

16018271830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Ah Lim v. Territory of Washington · Blight's v. Rochester · Winn's Heirs v. Jackson · Lessee of Smith v. Folwell

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

  1. ““It has been urged, however, at the bar that this court applies this principle only to state constructions of their own statutes. It is true that many of the cases in which this court has deemed itself bound to conform to state decisions have arisen on the construction of statutes; but the same rule has been extended to other cases; and there can be no good reason assigned why it should not be, when it is applying settled rules of real property. This court adopts the state decisions because they settle the law applicable to the case; and the reasons assigned for this course apply as well to rules of construction growing out of the common law as the statute law of the state when applied to the title to lands. And such a course is indispensable, in order to preserve uniformity; otherwise, the peculiar Constitution of the judicial tribunals of the states and of the United States would be productive of the greatest mischief and confusion.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Tbe inquiry is very much, narrowed, by applying tbe rule wbicb has uniformly governed this court, that where any principle of law, establishing _ a rule of real property, has been settled in the state courts, the same rule will be applied by this court, that would be applied by the state tribunals. This is a principle so pbviously just, and so indispensably necessary under our system of government, that it cannot be lost sight of."”
    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.