Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 U.S. 297 - John Doe v. Williard Carpenter

John Doe v. Williard Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis

59 U.S. 297 · 1855

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
December 1956
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 1956

9 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

8018551860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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 John Voorhees v. James Jackson · Wood v. Jackson ex dem. Genet · Burt v. Sternburgh

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

  1. ““The general rule is that the judgments of courts of concurrent jurisdiction are inadmissible in a subsequent suit, unless they are upon the same matter, and directly in point. When the same matter is directly in question, and the judgment in the foregoing suit is upon the point, it will then be, as a plea, a bar, or as evidence, conclusive between the parties. So a judgment is conclusive upon a matter legitimately within the issue, and necessarily involved in the decision.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““And the better opinion is that no such question could have been raised by the defendants in that proceeding if they had sought to invalidate the deed. The most that the court would have been justified in doing, in the usual course of proceeding, would have been to have stayed the suit in partition till the question could have been settled at law. The proceedings in partition are not appropriate for a litigation between parties in respect to the title.””
    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.