Fidelity Nat Bank Trust Co of Kansas City v. Swope’s Empirical Analysis
274 U.S. 123 · 1927
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 32 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth (1937), Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner (1929)
48 federal appellate · 32 district · 16 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedFidelity Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Swope (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Massachusetts v. Mellon · David Muskrat v. · Tutun v. United States · Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co. · Fairchild v. Hughes
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellants at the outset argue that all the objections made to the assessments here were open, and hence decided against appellees in the proceeding in the Jackson county circuit court, and that its judgment is not open to collateral attack in this or in any -other suit, since the issues which might have been litigated there are res adjudicata here. * * *. “But, if the determination of the-state court was res adjudicata according to its laws and procedure, no reason is suggested, nor are we able to perceive any, why it is not to be deemed res adjudicata here, if the proceeding in the state court, was a ‘case’ or ‘controversy’ within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. (Fed.Const.-art. 3, § 2), so that constitutional rights asr serted, or which might have been asserted in that proceeding, could eventually have been reviewed here. * * * * * * “That the judgment is binding on the parties and their privies and hence not open to collateral attack would seem to be the only reasonable construction of the statute, if that question were for us to decide. But the Supreme Court of Missouri, since the pendency of the present suit, has held that the judgment rendered by the Jackson county circuit court in a similar proceeding is not open to collateral attack by the property owners within the benefit district, and that such property owners may not litigate in another suit, questions, including the constitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment of the assessments levied, which might h”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the constitutional rights asserted, or which might have been asserted in that proceeding, could eventually have been reviewed here”
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.