Comstock v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis
70 U.S. 396 · 1865
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1943 · most notably Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad (1893), McArthur v. Scott (1885)
10 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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 Griffith v. Frazier · Warner v. People ex rel. Conner
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The proceeding for the sale of the real property of an intestate, though had in the general course of administration, is a distinct and independent pro ceeding authorized by statute only in certain specially designated cases; but, when by the presentation of a case within the statute the jurisdiction of the court has once attached, the regularity or irregularity of subsequent steps can only be questioned in some * * * mode prescribed by law. They are not matters for which the decrees of the court can be collaterally assailed.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well settled that when the jurisdiction of a court of limited and special authority appears upon the face of its proceedings, its action cannot be collaterally attacked for mere-error or irregularity.. The jurisdiction appearing, the same presumption of law arises that it was rightly exercised as prevails with • reference to the action of a court of superior and general authority. . . . Whether there was a widow of the deceased, or any next of kin, or creditor, who was a proper person to receive, letters, if he had applied for them, or whether there was any pju'blic administrator in office authorized or fit to take charge of the estate, or to which of' these several parties it was meet that the administration should be intrusted, were matters for the consideration and determination of the court; and its action respecting them, however irregular, cannot be impeached collaterally.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simmons v. Saul
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.