Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 290 U.S. 18 - Missouri v. Fiske

Missouri v. Fiske’s Empirical Analysis

290 U.S. 18 · 1933

Citation profile

473
cited by 473 later decisions
39
cited 39 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

126 federal appellate · 84 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 473 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996)

126 federal appellate · 84 district · 23 state decisions

1060193319401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedFiske v. Missouri (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Hans v. State of Louisiana · United States v. Lee · Cohens v. Virginia · McClellan v. Carland

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

  1. “'What is a suit? We understand it to be the prosecution, or pursuit, of some claim, demand, or request. In law language, it is the prosecution of some demand in a Court of justice.'”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But, if the decree of the federal court can be considered as determining the ownership of the shares so as to bind the state in later tax proceedings upon the death of the life tenant, and there is a federal right to have that effect given to the decree, that federal right can be specially set up and claimed in the proceeding in the state court, and, if the right is finally denied, the decision may be the subject of review by this Court in case the appropriate procedure is followed.” See, also, Dugas v. American Surety Co., 300 U.S. 414 , 428, 57 S.Ct. 515 , 521, 81 L.Ed. 720 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[federal] court has no authority to issue process against the State to compel it to subject itself to the court's judgment.”
    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.