Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 F.1d 321 - Stevens v. Clark

Stevens v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

62 F. 321 · 1894

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
May 1929
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 1929 · most notably Four Hundred and Forty-Three Cans of Frozen Egg Product v. United States of America (1912), United States Baldwin Co v. Robertson (1924)

20 federal appellate · 1 district ·

901894190019101920decided

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 Farrar v. Churchill · Gelston v. Hoyt · Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central Railway Co. · John Barry v. Mary Mercein · The United States v. Thomas Curry

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

  1. ““The action was one at law, to recover damages upon a contract for the delivery of ice. The case was tried before a jury in January, 1803, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff on'January 13, 1893, for $4,397.97. On February 20, 1893, a motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment entered for the plaintiff upon the verdict. On April 19th an appeal was prayed for and allowed. The case was argued upon the merits on October 5, 1893, without any objection being raised as to the jurisdiction of this court to hear the case. It was afterwards discovered by the court that no writ of error had ever been prayed for or issued, and, the attention of counsel being called to the fact, argument was had and briefs were filed on the question whether or not this court could take jurisdiction of the case by consent, without a writ of error ever having been issued. If it could, then the objection on this ground must be considered as waived by the parties having argued and submitted the case upon the merits without objection. “We are of opinion that this court has not obtained jurisdiction of the case, and that the appeal must be dismissed. The appropriate' and only mode of bringing cases of law for review before this court is a writ of error. An appeal is applicable only in chancery cases. This distinction is obvious, and has been steadily observed and maintained by the United States Supreme Court for a century. Equity cases must be brought up by appeal, which brings up the entire recor”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The writ of error is not brought in the legal meaning of the term until It Is filed in the court which rendered the judgment. It is the filing of the writ that removes the record from the inferior to the appellate court, and the period of limitation prescribed by the act of Congress must be calculated accordingly. The day on which the writ may have been issued by the clerk or the day on which it is tested are not material in deciding the question.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““To give the appellate court jurisdiction of a writ of error, the writ musi be issued and filed with the court below within the time prescribed by (he law, and this requirement cannot be waived by the parties.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.