Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 308 U.S. 343 - Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States

Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

308 U.S. 343 · 1939

Citation profile

1,365
cited by 1,365 later decisions
196
cited 196 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

506 federal appellate · 134 district · 82 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,365 later decisions (196 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably Bell v. Hood (1946), Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. (1957)

506 federal appellate · 134 district · 82 state decisions — followed in 20 states

25201939194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedBoard of Com'rs of Jackson County v. United States (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Stone v. White · Choate v. Trapp

Cited together with Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States · Deitrick v. Greaney · United States v. Summerlin

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 1,365 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “interest is not recovered according to a rigid theory of compensation for money withheld, but is given in response to considerations of fairness. It is denied when its exaction would be inequitable.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(S)tate notions of laches and state statutes of limitations have no applicability to suits by the Government, whether on behalf of Indians or otherwise ... This is so because the immunity of the sovereign from these defenses is historic. Unless expressly waived, it is implied in all federal enactments.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “explicit legislative policy cutting across state interests.”
    4 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.