Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 F.2d 247 - Mars v. McDougal

Mars v. McDougal’s Empirical Analysis

40 F.2d 247 · 1930

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
5
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2015

10 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

80193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Throckmorton · Heckman v. United States · United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. · United States v. Beebe · United States v. Noble

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. ““The Oklahoma court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter and, having jurisdiction, its decree whether right or wrong, is valid and binding and is res adjudicata until set aside by proper proceedings. Swift v. Jackson, 10 Cir., 37 F. 237 ; Gordon v. Ware Nat. Bank, 8 Cir., 132 F. 444, 449 , 67 L.R.A. 550 . The fact that Lusanna Brink was a full blood Creek Indian does not alter the situation. Under section 6, art. 2, of the Constitution of Oklahoma, Lusanna Brink was authorized to sue in the district court of Creek County to establish her interest in such allotment. When she availed herself of that privilege and submitted herself and her cause to the jurisdiction of that court, she became bound by the decree entered therein the same as any other person.””
    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.