Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 U.S. 369 - William Fontain Administrator of Frederick Kohne Deceased v. William Ravenel

William Fontain Administrator of Frederick Kohne Deceased v. William Ravenel’s Empirical Analysis

58 U.S. 369 · 1854

Citation profile

149
cited by 149 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
August 2004
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 15 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 149 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2004 · most notably Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890), United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. (1888)

41 federal appellate · 15 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 18 states

2301854186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Francois Fenelon v. The Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of Philadelphia · Trustees of the Philadelphia Baptist Ass'n v. Hart's Executors · Bartlet v. King · Charles Beatty v. Daniel Kurtz

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

  1. ““ When this country achieved its independence, the prerogatives of tho crown devolved upon the people of the states; and this power still remains with them, except so far as they have delegated a, portion of it to the federal government. The sovereign will is made known to ns by legislative enactment. The state as sovereign is parens pa trim. * * * The courts of the United States cannot exercise any equity powers except those conferred by acts of congress, and those judicial powers which the high court of chancery in England, acting under its judicial capacity as a court of equity, possessed and exercised at the time of the formation of the constitution of the United States. Powers not judicial, exercised by the chancellor merely as the representative of the sovereign, and by virtue of the king’s prerogative as parens patria, are not possessed by the circuit courts. ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In Fontain v. Ravenel, 17 How. 369 , 384 [ 15 L. Ed. 80 , 86], Mr. Justice McLean, delivering the opinion of this court in a charity case, said: ‘When this country achieved its independence, the prerogatives of the crown devolved upon the people of the states. And this power still remains with them, except so far as they have delegated a portion of it to the federal government. The sovereign will is made known to us by legislative enactment. The state, as a sovereign, is the parens patrise.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““So, too, as relates to the jurisdiction oí the Circuit Court sitting as a court of chancery. It is undoubtedly true, as contended for in the argument of the complainant, in regard to equitable rights, that the power of the courts of chancery of the United States is, under the Constitution, to be regulated by the law of the English chancery; that is to say, the distinction between law and equity as recognized in the jurisprudence of England is to be observed in the courts of the United States, in administering the remedy for an existing right. The rule applies to the remedy, and not the right; and it does not follow that every right given by the English law, and which, at the time the Constitution was adopted, might have been enforced in the court of chancery, can also be enforced in a court of the United States. The right must be given by the law of the state, or of the United States. It is the form of remedy for which the Constitution provides; and, if a complainant has no right, the Circuit Court, sitting as a court of chancery, has nothing to remedy in any form of proceeding. “In the case before the court, the question is: Is the bequest which the complainants claim a valid one by the laws of Maryland? It is a question which, in its nature, necessarily depends upon the laws of the respective states. Some of the states sanction devises of this description, some do not, and undoubtedly it depends upon every state to determine for itself to whom, in wliat form, and by what i”
    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.