Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 U.S. 18 - Moore v. Mitchell

Moore v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

281 U.S. 18 · 1930

Citation profile

179
cited by 179 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 24 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 179 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), United States v. First National City Bank (1965)

52 federal appellate · 24 district · 31 state decisions — followed in 10 states

520193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedMoore v. Mitchell (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Pennoyer v. Neff · Hale v. Allinson · William Booth v. Ferdinand Clark · Converse v. Hamilton · Great Western Mining Manufacturing Company v. Charles a Harris D B

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

  1. ““He is the mere arm of the State for the collection of taxes for some of its subdivisions and has no better standing to bring suits in courts outside Indiana than have executors, administrators, or chancery receivers without title, appointed under the laws and by the courts of that State. It is well understood that they are without authority, in their official capacity, to sue as of right in the federal courts in other States. . . . The reasons on which rests this long established practice in respect of executors, administrators and such receivers apply with full force here. We conclude that petitioner lacked legal capacity to sue. “It is not necessary to express any opinion upon the question considered below, whether a federal court in one State will enforce the revenue laAvs of another State.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is not necessary to express any opinion upon the question considered below, whether a federal court in one State will enforce the revenue laws of another State.””
    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.