Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 55 U.S. 334 - Benjamin Harris v. William Hardeman

Benjamin Harris v. William Hardeman’s Empirical Analysis

55 U.S. 334 · 1852

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
January 2026
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Pennoyer v. Neff (1877), Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad (1893)

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 17 states

140185218601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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

  1. ““In reviewing the decision of the circuit court it should be borne in mind, as a rule to guide and control our examination, that the judgment impugned before that court was a judgment by default, and that in all judgments by default, whatever may affect their competency or regularity, every proceeding, indeed, from the writ and indorsements thereon down to the judgment itself, inclusive, is part of the record and is open to examination.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Unless a court has jurisdiction, it can never make a record which imports uncontrollable verity to the party over whom it has usurped jurisdiction, and he ought not, therefore, to be estopped from proving any fact which goes to establish the truth of a plea alleging the want of jurisdiction?’"'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] judgment may be attacked in a collateral proceeding by showing that the court had no jurisdiction of the person, or, in proceedings in rem, no jurisdiction of the thing.”
    2 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.