Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 U.S. 231 - Mason v. Eldred

Mason v. Eldred’s Empirical Analysis

73 U.S. 231 · 1867

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co. (1932), Bernheimer v. Converse (1907)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 15 states

16018671870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Young and al v. Black · Sheehy v. Mandeville and Jamesson

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

  1. ““If the note in suit was merged in the judgment, then the judgment is a bar to the action, and an exemplification of its record is admissible, for it has long been settled that under the plea of the general issue in assumpsit evidence may be received to show, not merely that the alleged cause of action never existed, but also to show that it did not subsist at the commencement of the suit. On the other hand, if the note is not thus merged, it still forms a subsisting cause of action, and the judgment is immaterial and irrelevant.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Therefore, it is that in suits upon these transactions all copartners must be brought in . . . and if not brought in, the omission may be pleaded in abatement. . . . They [partners] cannot be sued separately, for they have incurred no several obligation; they cannot be sued jointly with the others, because judgment has been already recovered against the latter, who would otherwise be subjected to two suits for the same cause.””
    1 later decision 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.