Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 73 U.S. 484 - United States v. Eckford

United States v. Eckford’s Empirical Analysis

73 U.S. 484 · 1867

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
December 1994
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1994 · most notably Dalehite v. United States (1953), United States v. Lee (1882)

24 federal appellate · 7 district · 7 state decisions

24018671870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 United States v. Hudson · McIntire v. Wood

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

  1. ““We adopt the views expressed by this court in the ease of De Groot v. United States * * * that, when the United States is plaintiff and the defendant has pleaded a set-off. which the acts of Congress have authorized him to do, no judgment can bo rendered against the government, although it may be judicially ascertained that, on striking a balance of just demands, the government is indebted to the defendant in an ascertained amount””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Sec. 203. The United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation shall cease to exist and shall stand dissolved. All the records, books, papers, and corporate property of said dissolved corporation shall be taken over by the Commission. Ail existing contractual obligations of the dissolved corporation shall be assumed by the United States. Any suit against the dissolved corporation pending in any court of the United States shall be defended by the Commission upon behalf of the United States, under the supervision of the Attorney General, and any judgment obtained against the dissolved corporation in any such pending suit shall be reported to Congress in the manner provided in section 226, title 31, United States Code, for reporting judgments against the United States in the Court of Clair s.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Without extending the argument, we adopt the views expressed by this court in the case of De Groot v. United States, ( 5 Wall. 432 ) decided at the last term, that when the United States is plaintiff and the defendant has pleaded a set-off, which the acts of Congress have authorized him to do, no judgment can be rendered against the government, although it may be judicially ascertained that, on striking a balance of just demands, the government is indebted to the defendant in an ascertained amount.””
    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.