Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 U.S. 1 - James Moody Vaughan v. Henry Northup James Moody

James Moody Vaughan v. Henry Northup James Moody’s Empirical Analysis

40 U.S. 1 · 1841

Citation profile

167
cited by 167 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 22 district · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 167 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably Byers v. McAuley (1893), Blackstone v. Miller (1903)

32 federal appellate · 22 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 22 states

250184118501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Wyman v. United States · The United States Use of James Mackey et al. v. Richard S Coxe · Stevens v. Gaylord · Kerr v. Devisees of a Moon

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

  1. ““ ‘The debts due from the government of the United States have no locality at the seat of government. The United States in their sovereign capacity have no particular place of domicile, but possess, in contemplation of law, an ubiquity throughout the United States, and the debts due by them are not to be treated like the debts of a private debtor, which constitute local assets in his own domicile.’ and accordingly it was held, in that case, that ‘the administrator of a creditor of the government duly appointed in the state where the creditor was domiciled at the timo of his death, has fell authority to receive payment and give a full discharge of the debt’ ‘due his intestate in any place where the government may choose to pay it, whether it be at the seat o'f government or at any other place whore the public funds are deposited, and that moneys so received constituted assets under that administration, for which he was accountable to the proper tribunals of the state where he was appointed.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Every grant of administration is strictly confined in its authority and operation to the limits of the territory of the government which grants it, and does not de jure extend to other countries. It cannot confer, as a matter of right, any authority to collect assets of the deceased in any other state.””
    4 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.