Evans v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1894
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently July 1996 · most notably In re Allen (1909), Grinbaum v. Superior Court (1923)
1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions — followed in 12 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
Relies on Edwards v. United States · Chase v. Hathaway · Eslava v. Lepretre · Haymond v. Camden · Wandling v. Straw
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even though the statute be silent regarding notice, * * * yet the common law steps in and requires it. ⅜ ⅜ * A statute will not be construed to authorize proceedings affecting a man’s person or property without notice. It does not dispense with notice. ⅞ ⅜ * If the ease were one of mere error or irregularity, it might be said that the order was good against collateral attack, and must be reversed by a direct proceeding; but the question is one of jurisdiction — a want of authority to make the order for want of jurisdiction over the person to be affected. * * * A sentence of the court without hearing the party, or giving him an opportunity to be heard, is not a judicial determination of his rights, and is not entitled to any respect in any other tribunal. Jurisdiction is indispensable to the validity of all judicial proceédings. Jurisdiction of the person as well as the subject-matter are prerequisites, and must exist, before a court can render a valid judgment or decree; and if either of these is wanting, all the proceedings are void. * * * The county court being a court of limited jurisdiction* it must appear, not only that it had- jurisdiction as to the subject-matter, but also over the person by service of process or notice. * * ⅞ When we say there must be jurisdiction, we mean both that the matter and the person to be affected must be within the jurisdiction of the court by service of notice upon him.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. White
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.