Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank’s Empirical Analysis
308 U.S. 371 · 1940
Citation profile
770 federal appellate · 160 district · 568 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,550 later decisions (138 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Teague v. Lane (1989), Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982)
770 federal appellate · 160 district · 568 state decisions — followed in 43 states
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
reviewedChicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Cromwell v. County of Sac · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Stoll v. Gottlieb · Baltimore Co v. Phillips
Cited together with Stoll v. Gottlieb · Linkletter v. Walker · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Great Northern Ry Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co
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 2,550 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.”
75 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court has the authority to pass upon its own jurisdiction and its decree sustaining jurisdiction against attack, while open to direct review, is res judicata in a collateral action.”
32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether respondents having failed to raise the question in the proceeding to which they were parties and in which they could have raised it and had it finally determined, were privileged to remain quiet and raise it in a subsequent suit. Such a view is contrary to the well-settled principle that res judicata may be pleaded as a bar, not only as respects matters actually presented to sustain or defeat the right asserted in the earlier proceeding, “but also as respects any other available matter which might have been presented to that end.””
16 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.