Mallow v. Hinde’s Empirical Analysis
25 U.S. 193 · 1827
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 11 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014 · most notably Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board (1938), Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson (1968)
74 federal appellate · 11 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Winn's Heirs v. Jackson
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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We do not put this case upon the ground of jurisdiction, but upon a much broader ground, which must equally apply to all courts of equity, whatever be their structure, as to jurisdiction. We put it on the ground that no court can adjudicate directly upon a person’s right without the party being actually or constructively before the court.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The rule which requires that all persons concerned in interest, however remotely, should be made parties to the suit, though applicable to most cases in the courts oí the United states, is not applicable to all. In the exercise of its discretion, the court will require the plaintiff to do- ail in his power to bring every person concerned in interest before the court. But, if the «ase may be completely decided as between the litigant parties, the circumstance that an interest exists in some other person whom the process oí the court cannot reach, as if such party be the resident of some other state, ought not to prevent a decree upon its merits.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gregory v. Swift · Camp v. Bonsal“Courts of equity require, that all the parties concerned in interest shall be brought before them, that the matter in controversy may be finally settled. This equitable rule, however, is framed by the Court itself, and is subject to its discretion. It is not, like the description of parties, an inflexible rule, a failure to observe which turns the party out of Court, because it has no jurisdiction over his cause; but, being introduced by the Court itself, for the purpose of justice, is susceptible of modification for the promotion of those purposes.”
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.