Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 34 FSUPP 61 - Williams v. James

Williams v. James’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
November 1986
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 1986

6 federal appellate · 5 district ·

14019401950196019701980decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 112 · 28 U.S.C. § 41 · 28 U.S.C. § 503

Relies on Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Hess v. Pawloski · Ex parte Schollenberger · Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board · Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Company of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Company

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

  1. “In a civil suit in personam jurisdiction over the defendant, as distinguished from venue, implies, among other things, either voluntary appearance by him or service of process upon him at a place where the officer serving it has authority to execute a writ of summons. Under the general provisions of law, a United States district court cannot issue process beyond the limits of the district, and a defendant in a civil suit can be subjected to its jurisdiction in personam only by service within the district. Such was the general rule established by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, in accordance with the practice at the common law. And such has been the general rule ever since.”
    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.