Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 U.S. 552 - Hoffman v. McClelland

Hoffman v. McClelland’s Empirical Analysis

264 U.S. 552 · 1924

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2013
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably Fulton National Bank of Atlanta v. Hozier (1925), Piper v. Childs (1935)

50 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

2801924193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Krippendorf v. Hyde · State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas · Taubel-Scott-Kitzmiller Co. v. Fox · Gumbel v. Pitkin · Minnesota Company v. St Paul Company

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

  1. ““It is settled that, where in the progress of a suit in a federal court property has been drawn into the court’s custody and control, third persons claiming interests in or liens upon the property may be permitted to come into that court for the purpose of setting up^protecting, and enforcing, their claims, although the court could not consider or adjudicate their claims if it had not impounded the property. Power to deal with such claims is incident to the jurisdiction acquired in the suit wherein the impounding occurs, and may be invoked by a petition to intervene pro interesse suo or by a dependent bill. But in either case the proceeding is purely ancillary.””
    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.