State of Texas v. State of New Jersey’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 33 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 204 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably Illinois v. City of Milwaukee (1972), Commissioner v. Soliman (1993)
47 federal appellate · 33 district · 68 state decisions — followed in 11 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1251
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Richards v. United States · Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green
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 204 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“of ease of administration and of equity.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the right and power to escheat the debt should be accorded to the State of the creditor's last known address”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e interpret that decision to mean that in a suit strictly between the domiciliary State and a resident stakeholder, the State is entitled to a judgment against the stakeholder for custody of the property, subject to some other State coming forward at a subsequent time with proof that it has a superior right to escheat or custody. This is the only interpretation which would permit the purpose of State escheat and custodial laws to be effective as to abandoned properties within the jurisdiction of one State but owed to disappeared persons with last known addresses in States which have no jurisdiction to require reporting or delivery of the property. At least this interpretation and result in the present case would bring the funds into the custody of the State Treasurer of Texas, where reports and procedures would be available under the Texas Act for other States to learn of the funds and assert administratively and in our courts any superior rights which they may claim.”
2 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.