Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 U.S. 166 - Riggs v. Johnson County

Riggs v. Johnson County’s Empirical Analysis

73 U.S. 166 · 1867

Citation profile

377
cited by 377 later decisions
32
cited 32 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

108 federal appellate · 38 district · 70 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 377 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2019 · most notably Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York (1978), McClellan v. Carland (1910)

108 federal appellate · 38 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 23 states

4701867187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 McIntire v. Wood · Diggs v. Wolcott · Livingston Gilchrist v. The Maryland Insurance Company · Coy v. City Council of Lyons City

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

  1. “[p]rocess subsequent to judgment is as essential to jurisdiction as process antecedent to judgment, else the judicial power would be incomplete and entirely inadequate for the purposes for which it was conferred by the Constitution.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he jurisdiction of a Court is not exhausted by the rendition of its judgment, but continues until that judgment shall be satisfied.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““State courts are exempt from all interference by the federal tribunals, but they are destitute of all power to restrain either the process or proceedings in the national courts. Circuit Courts and state courts act separably and independently of each other, and in their respective spheres of action the process issued by the one is as far beyond the reach of the other as if the line of division between them ‘was traced by landmarks and monuments visible to the eye.’ ””
    3 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.