Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 30 U.S. 284 - The State of New Jersey v. The People of the State of New York

The State of New Jersey v. The People of the State of New York’s Empirical Analysis

30 U.S. 284 · 1831

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 1998
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1998 · most notably Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908), In re Ayers (1887)

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

8018311840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Chisholm, Ex'r. v. Georgia · Fowler v. Lindsey · Grayson v. Virginia · The State of New York v. The State of Connecticut

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

  1. “"The Constitution of the United States declares that The judicial power shall extend to controversies between two or more states.’ It also declares that fin cases affecting embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.’ Congress has passed no act for the special purpose of prescribing the mode of proceeding in suits' instituted against a1 state, or in any suit in which the Supreme Court is to exercise the original jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution. * * * At a very early period of our judicial history suits were instituted in this court against states, and the questions concerning its jurisdiction and the mode of proceeding were necessarily considered. So early as August, 1792, an injunction was awarded, at the prayer of the state of Georgia, to stay a sum of money, recovered by Brailsford, a British subject, which was claimed by Georgia, under her acts of confiscation. This was an exercise of the original jurisdiction of the court, and no doubt of its propriety was ever expressed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “controversies between two or more States.”
    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.