Porter v. Com.’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 146 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Landrum v. CHIPPENHAM AND JOHNSTON-WILLIS (2011), Grattan v. Com. (2009)
6 federal appellate · 146 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.
Relationships
Relies on Williams v. Taylor · Lockett v. Ohio · Koon v. United States · Ring v. Arizona · Illinois v. Allen
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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A court may lack the requisite ‘jurisdiction’ to proceed to an adjudication on the merits for a variety of reasons. The term jurisdiction embraces several concepts including subject matter jurisdiction, which is the authority granted through constitution or statute to adjudicate a class of cases or controversies; territorial jurisdiction, that is, authority over persons, things, or occurrences located in a defined geographic area; notice jurisdiction, or effective notice to a party or if the proceeding is in rem seizure of a res; and ‘the other conditions of fact must exist which are demanded by the unwritten or statute law as the prerequisites of the authority of the court to proceed to judgment or decree.’ Farant Inv. Corp. v. Francis, 138 Va. 417, 427-28 , 122 S.E. 141, 144 (1924).””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“`The abuse-of-discretion standard [also] includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Our recitation in Morrison reflects the long-standing distinction between subject matter jurisdiction, which cannot be granted or waived by the parties and the lack of which renders an act of the court void, and territorial jurisdiction or venue. The latter goes to the authority of the court to act in particular circumstances or places and is waived if not properly and timely raised.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.