Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 U.S. 398 - Lessee of Robert Smith and Carey Butt v. William McCann

Lessee of Robert Smith and Carey Butt v. William McCann’s Empirical Analysis

65 U.S. 398 · 1860

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Mertens v. Hewitt Associates (1993), Nedd v. United Mine Workers (1977)

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions

801860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Lessee of Culbertson v. Martin · Young v. Algeo

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

  1. ““ On the 12th day of July, 1880, Anson Searls, the appellee in this cause, filed in the Circuit Court of- the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan his bill of complaint against .Alva "Worden and John S. Worden, for the infringement of a patent, and such proceedings were had in thb cause that on the 5th day of September, 1883, a decree was entered in said cause in said Circuit Court, whereby it was decreed that the said Alva Worden and John S. Worden infringed the patent, and should pay over to the said Anson Searls $24,960.31. “ That upon the entry of said decree the defendants appealed the case to this court. But the -defendants,.Alva Worden and John S. Worden, were unable to "give "the necessary bond to operate as a supersedeas bond upon said appeal. “On the lJth of September, 1883, the complainant issued an execution on his decree, and placed it in the hands of the marshal of said district. “ On the 18th of September, 1883, the marshal, under the execution, levied upon certain lots in the city of Tpsilanti, "county of Washtenaw, and upon certain lands in the town of Sumpter, county of Wayne, all in the State of Michigan, in thé Eastern District thereof, the property of the said appellant, Harrison H. Ballard; and on other lands in the said city of Jjjpsilanti, belonging to the said Alva Worden and John S. Wordexi but which were mortgaged to Mary Ann Andrews, Henry M. .Curtis, Henry Yan Tuyl and Charles King. “ That, on the 10th day of. October, 1883, the said”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the court of chancery ... has the exclusive jurisdiction of trusts and trust estates,”
    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.