Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 306 U.S. 282 - Titus v. Wallick

Titus v. Wallick’s Empirical Analysis

306 U.S. 282 · 1939

Citation profile

251
cited by 251 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 16 district · 108 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 251 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Milliken v. Meyer (1940), Williams v. State of North Carolina (1945)

54 federal appellate · 16 district · 108 state decisions — followed in 22 states

6501939194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Tumey v. State of Ohio · Huntington v. Attrill · Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co. · Fauntleroy v. Lum · Adam v. Saenger

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

  1. ““It is the judgment and not the cause of action which gave rise to it for which credit is claimed, and the constitutional mandate requires credit to be given to a money judgment rendered on a civil cause of action in another state, even though the forum would have been under no duty to entertain the suit on which the judgment was founded.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A]ny form of assignment which purports to assign or transfer a chose in action confers upon the transferee such title or ownership as will enable him to sue upon it. This is true even though the assignment is for the purpose of suit only and the transferee is obligated to account for the proceeds of suit to his assignor.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “legal effect was not curtailed by the recital that the assignment was for purposes of suit and that its proceeds were to be turned over or accounted for to another.”
    2 later decisions 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.