Ball v. Tompkins’s Empirical Analysis
41 F. 486 · 1890
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1980 · most notably Kline v. Burke Construction Co. (1922), Gordon v. Washington (1935)
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
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 Payne v. Hook · Freeman v. Howe · STANTON v. Embrey, Administrator · Gaines v. Fuentes · The State of Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling and Belmont Brideg Company William Otterson and George Croft
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The possession contemplated as sufficient to make it exclusive is that which the court hy its process, or some equivalent mode, has, either for the direct purpose of the proceeding, or for sorné other purpose ancillary to the main object, drawn into its doxhinion and custody some thing. That thing may he corporeal or incorporeal, — a substance or a mere right. But a controversy, a question, an inquiry, is not such a thing. These may be the subject-matter of jurisdiction in a pending cause, which often proceeds from the beginning to the judgment without the court’s having taken actual dominion of anything. But there is no exclusive jurisdiction over such a matter. The result may be a judgment which will establish a right, but the court has not had any possession. * * * The control which each court has over its own process has always been found adequate to prevent mischief from diverse judgments in the several jurisdictions. But, in proceeding on its way, whenever either court finds that the other has already taken actual dominion over some objective thing related to the subject, it will let the thing alone, so long as that dominion is retained, and proceed, if there he enough material besides to support the exercise of its jurisdiction, and the pursuit may reach fruit. If not, it. will stop.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Undoubtedly, the state court may license the sale of this property, If It finds it expedient to do so, in the situation of affairs. If it does so, this court would, of course, respect its action. If, on the contrary, that court does not find itself compelled to grant the license, this court may order a sale, and marshal and distribute the proceeds, or it may take such action as the equities require, and it finds expedient.” ■”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hale v. Tyler““In the exercise of this, as well as of other, branches of its authority, this court cannot invade the possession of tlm subject-matter of controversy already taken by the state court having- concurrent authority, and in the exercise thereof; for the rule is hero, as elsewhere, that the court which first acquires possession o£ the subject will retain, it, and the power to dispose of it by its own adjudication.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.