Swift v. Tyson’s Empirical Analysis
41 U.S. 1 · 1842
Citation profile
431 federal appellate · 108 district · 138 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,165 later decisions (140 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Erie Co v. Tompkins (1938), Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984)
431 federal appellate · 108 district · 138 state decisions — followed in 39 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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. Hudson · Manro v. Joseph Almeida · Jackson v. Chew · Yates v. Lansing
Cited together with Erie Co v. Tompkins · Hanna v. Plumer · Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
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 1,165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But, admitting the doctrine to be fully settled in New York, it remains to be considered whether it is obligatory upon this court, if it differs from the principles established in the general commercial law. It is observable that the courts of New York do not found their decisions upon this point, upon any local statute, or positive, fixed, or ancient local usage; but they deduce the doctrine from the general principles of commercial law. It is, however, contended, that the thirty-fourth section of Judiciary Act T789, c. 20 [Oornp. St. 1913, § 1538], furnishes a rule obligatory upon this court to follow the decisions of the state tribunals in all cases to which they apply. That section provides ‘that the laws of the several states, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision, in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.’ In order to maintain the argument, it is essential, therefore, to hold, that the word ‘laws,’ in this section, includes within the scope oí its meaning the decisions of the local tribunals. In the ordinary use of language, it will hardly be contended that the decisions of courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are, and axe not, of themselves, laws. They are often re-examined, reversed, and qualified by the courts themselves, whenever they are found to be either defective, or ill-”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.””
3 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.