Ex Parth Dubuque and Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
68 U.S. 69 · 1863
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1967 · most notably In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. (1895), In re Potts (1897)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘If the special mandate, directed by the 24th section (of the judiciary act), is not obeyed or executed, then the general power given to “all the courts of the United States to issue any writs which are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the principles and usages of law,” by the 14th section of the judiciary act, fairly arises, and a mandamus or other appropriate writs will go,’ although an appeal will also sometimes lie. Perkins v. Fourniquet, 14 How. 328 , 330, 14 L. Ed. 441 , 442; Milwaukee & M. R. Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440 , 443, 17 L. Ed. 860 , 861. See also Boyce’s Executors v. Grundy, 9 Pet. 275 , 9 L. Ed. 127 ; Ex parte Dubuque & P. R. Co., 1 Wall. 69 , sub nom. Dubuque Co. v. Litchfield, 17 L. Ed. 514 ; Durant v. Essex Co., 101 U. S. 555 , 25 L. Ed. 961 ; Re Washington & G. R. Co., 140 U. S. 91 , 35 L. Ed. 339 , 11 S. Ct. 673 ; City Bank v. Hunter, 152 U. S. 512 , 38 L. Ed. 534 , 14 S. Ct. 675 ; Re City National Bank, 153 U. S. 246 , 38 L. Ed. 705 , 14 S. Ct. 804 ; Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U. S. 247 , 40 L. Ed. 414 , 16 S. Ct. 291 ; Re Potts, 166 U. S. 263 , sub nom. In re C. & A. Potts & Co., 41 L. Ed. ;994, 17 S. Ct. 520 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““* * * The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry' it into execution, according to the mandate. They cannot vary it, or examine it for any other purpose than execution, nor give any other or further relief.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gilliland v. Bilby
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.