Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 U.S. 488 - Ex Parte Charles Sibbald v. The United States

Ex Parte Charles Sibbald v. The United States’s Empirical Analysis

37 U.S. 488 · 1838

Citation profile

380
cited by 380 later decisions
29
cited 29 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

153 federal appellate · 37 district · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 380 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. (1944), In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. (1895)

153 federal appellate · 37 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 20 states

46018381840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Cameron v. M'Roberts · Browder v. McArthur · McVeigh v. Messersmith · Gilliland v. Caldwell

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

  1. ““No principle is better settled or of more universal application than that no court can reverse or annul its own final decrees or judgments for errors of fact or law after the term in which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes; * * * from whieb it follows that no change or modiíication can be made which may substantially vary or affect it in any material thing.””
    32 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No principle is better settled, or of more universal application, tlian that no court can reverse or annul its own final decrees or judgments, for errors of fact or law, after the term in which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes (Cameron v. McRoberts, 3 Wheat. 591 , 4 L. Ed. 467 ; Bank v. Wistar, 3 Pet. 431 , 7 L. Ed. 731 ); or to reinstate a cause dismissed by mistake (The Palmyra, 12 Wheat. 10 , 6 L. Ed. 531 ): from which it follows that no change or modification can he made, which may substantially vary or affect it in any material thing. Bills of review in cases of equity, and writs of error coram vobis, at law, are exceptions which cannot affect the present motion.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the ... District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed as to [a codefendant] .... All other convictions are affirmed....”
    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.