Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 U.S. 232 - Hughes v. United States

Hughes v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

71 U.S. 232 · 1866

Citation profile

286
cited by 286 later decisions
32
cited 32 times by the Supreme Court
26
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 25 district · 75 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 286 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Costello v. United States (1961), Angel v. Bullington (1947)

81 federal appellate · 25 district · 75 state decisions — followed in 26 states

35018661870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 De Sobry v. Nicholson

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

  1. ““In order that a judgment may constitute a bar to another suit, it must be rendered in a proceeding between the same parties or their privies, and the point'of controversy must be the same in both cases, and must be determined on its merits. If the first suit was dismissed for defect of pleadings or parties, or a misconception of the form of proceeding, or the want of jurisdiction, or was disposed of on any ground which did not go to the merits o£ the action, the judgment rendered will prove no bar to anothei suit.””
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The patentee cannot complain of the proceeding, for the open, notorious, and exclusive possession of the premises by the parties claiming under Goodloe, when the patentee made his entry and received the patent, was sufficient to put him upon inquiry as to the interests, legal or equitable, held by them; and, if he neglected to make the inquiry, he is not entitled to any greater consideration than if he had made it, and ascertained the actual facts of the case.””
    7 later decisions 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.