Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 F.1d 961 - Gates v. Bucki

Gates v. Bucki’s Empirical Analysis

53 F. 961 · 1893

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 1970
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1970 · most notably Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining Company (1905), Cable v. United States Life Insurance (1903)

26 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

150189319001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Watson v. Jones · Covell v. Heyman · Cooper v. Reynolds · Freeman v. Howe

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

  1. ““When the jurisdiction of the courts in cases between the same parties involving the same issues, and seeking identical remedies, is dependent upon personal service of the original process upon the defendant, had within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the courts, then it is possible to proceed with each case without bringing about an unseemly conflict of jurisdiction. In some cases each court can proceed io final judgment without conflict. In others the first judgment rendered may bo available to the prevailing party as a plea in bar to the action still pending. When, however, the proceedings are in rein, or are of that kind wherein jurisdiction is based solely apon the possession or control of property, and in which the final judgment of the court can only be enforced against the property taken into possession or under the control of the court, then a different rule applies.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When, therefore, by the levy of process either mesne or final, or by the beginning of proceedings in rem or quasi in rem. property, either real or personal. has been brought within the control or custody of a court of the one system, such property cannot be subjected to the process, nor be brought within the control, of a court of the other system, and the right which the latter court would otherwise have to seize the property or to found jurisdiction on the possession or control thereof is placed in abeyance, and cannot be exercised until the court having the control and custody of the property parts with the same.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““These courts [courts of the Tlnited States and of the slates] do not belong to ¡he same system so Car as their jurisdiction is concurrent, and, although they co-exist in the same space, they are independent, and have no common superior. They exercise jurisdiction in the same territory, but not in the same plane; and, when one lakes into its jurisdiction a, specific thing, that res is as much withdrawn from the judicial power of the other as if it had been carried physically into a different territorial sovereignty.””
    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.