Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 U.S. 314 - Davis v. O'Hara

Davis v. O'Hara’s Empirical Analysis

266 U.S. 314 · 1924

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
June 1983
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 9 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1983 · most notably Reece v. State of Georgia (1955), Hathorn v. Lovorn (1982)

24 federal appellate · 9 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 11 states

2401924193019401950196019701980decided

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 Messenger v. Anderson · Missouri Pac Co v. Ault · Cooper v. Reynolds · Reynolds v. Stockton · E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Davis

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

  1. “[w]e have jurisdiction to consider all of the substantial federal questions determined in the earlier stages of [state proceedings], . . . and our right to re-examine such questions is not affected by a ruling that the first decision of the state court became the law of the case. . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““His petition did not show where the injury occurred or where he lived when injured. The director general appeared specially for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction of the court ‘ over the person of the defendant and over the subject-matter of this action,’ and moved to quash the summons; the grounds alleged were ‘that General Orders Nos. '50, 50A, 18, 18A, and 18B, issued by the director general, . . . provide that all suits against the director general of railroads, as authorized by General Order No. 50A, must be brought in the county or district where the plaintiff resided at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, or in the county or district where the cause of action arose’; that plaintiff, at the time of the accrual of the cause of action, did not reside in Douglas county, Neb., and that the cause of action, did not arise there. Plaintiff did not deny the allegations on which the motion was based. The district court overruled the motion without more. The defendant answered, setting up the same objection to jurisdiction and his defenses on the merits. Later, plaintiff filed an amended petition; and to that defendant filed answer, in which he again asserted his objection to jurisdiction. At the trial, after the evidence was heard, the court upon its own motion instructed the jury to return a verdict for defendant; and judgment was entered in his favor. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which was denied. He then appealed to the supreme court. De”
    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.