Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 F.1d 17 - Bridges v. Sheldon

Bridges v. Sheldon’s Empirical Analysis

7 F. 17 · 1880

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
November 1987
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1987 · most notably In Re Peterson (1920), Lamb v. Schmitt (1932)

3 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

10018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Watson v. Jones · James L. v. Carryl · Stephen Harding v. Asa Handy · Cockle v. Flack · Ewing v. City of St. Louis

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

  1. ““There is no doubt about the power of a cotirt of equity to revise the report of a master, by supplying facts material, which are shown by the evidence, but not stated in the report, by setting aside the finding of facts, not shown by any evidence, or which are contrary to the evidence, and when errors in Jaw have controlled or influenced the finding of material facts; but this revisory power of the court has never been considered as covering a right for a party to appeal from the master to the court upon disputed questions of fact determined by the master as matters of fact, upon conflicting testimony;” citing Green v. Bishop, 1 Cliff. 186 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Tlio court cannot employ a stenographer at the expense of the government, neither could it at the expense of parties without their consent, nor allow one to do so at the expense of another, by requiring the expense to be treated as taxable costs. The authority of the master cannot exceed that of the court appointing the master.””
    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.