Markham v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
326 U.S. 490 · 1946
Citation profile
379 federal appellate · 121 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,074 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976), Louisiana Power Light Company v. City of Thibodaux (1959)
379 federal appellate · 121 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 10 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
reviewedAllen v. Markham (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41 · 50 U.S.C. § 4316
Relies on Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Meredith v. City of Winter Haven · Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co. · Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson
Cited together with Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson · Sutton v. English · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · United States v. Bank of New York & Trust 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 1,074 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in favor of creditors, legatees and heirs”
89 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“right in the property to be distributed after its administration.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although in this case petitioner sought a judgment in the district court ordering defendant executor to, pay over the entire net estate to the petitioner upon an allowance of the executor's final account, the judgment declared only that petitioner [was entitled to the net estate]. The effect of the judgment was to leave undisturbed the orderly administration of ' decedent’s estate in the state probate court and to decree petitioner’s right in the property to be distributed after its administration. This * * * is not an exercise of probate jurisdiction or an interference with property in the possession or custody of a state court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foster v. Carlin
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.