John Clarke Administrator of Willard Wetmore v. Henry Mathewson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 federal appellate · 23 district · 11 state decisions

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

1. ““It is quite clear, that the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought, and that after vesting, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events.” Mullan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537 , 6 L.Ed. 154 . “The parties to the original bill were citizens of different States, and the jurisdiction of the court completely attached to the controversy; having so attached, it could, not be devested by any subsequent events, and the court had a rightful authority to proceed to a final determination of it. If, after the commencement of the suit, the original plaintiff had removed into and become a citizen of Rhode Island, the jurisdiction over the cause would not have been devested by such change of domicile. So it was held by this court in Morgan’s Heirs v. Morgan, 2 Wheat. 290, 297 [ 4 L.Ed. 242 ]; Mo[u]llan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537 [ 6 L.Ed. 154 ]; and Dunn v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 1 [ 8 L.Ed. 845 ].” Clarke, Administrator, v. Mathewson, 12 Pet. 164 , 9 L.Ed. 1041 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cross v. Evans · Hardenberg v. Ray

2. ““The death of either party, pending the suit, does not, where the cause of action survives, amount to a determination of the suit. It might in suits at common law, upon the mere principles of that law, have produced an abatement of the suit, which would have destroyed it. But in courts of equity, an abatement of the suit, by the death of a party, has always been held to have a very different effect; for such abatement amounts to a mere suspension, and not to a determination of the suit. It may again be put in motion by a bill of revivor, and the proceedings being revived, the cause proceeds to its regular determination as an original bill. The bill of revivor is not the commencement of a new suit; but is the mere continuation of the old suit.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 14 Wash. 2d 310 - West Coast Life Insurance v. Mori