Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 139 - Green v. Van Buskirk

Green v. Van Buskirk’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 139 · 1868

Citation profile

191
cited by 191 later decisions
38
cited 38 times by the Supreme Court
25
states following
September 1993
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 12 district · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 191 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1993 · most notably Hanson v. Denckla (1958), Huntington v. Attrill (1892)

39 federal appellate · 12 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 25 states

43018681870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Mills v. Duryee

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

  1. ““It must be obvious, when the constitution declared that full faiili ¡mil credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, and provides that congress may, hy general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall ho proved, and the effect thereof, that the latter clause, as it relates to judgments, was intended to provide the means of giving to them the conclusiveness of judgments upon the merits, when it is sought to carry them into judgments by suits in the tribunals of another state. The authenticity of a judgment, and its effect, depend upon the law made in pursuance of the constitution. The faith and credit due to it as the judicial proceeding of a state is given by the constitution, independently of all legislation. By the law of (he 20th of May, 1700, the judgment is made a debt of record, not examinable upon its merits; but it does not carry with It into ¡mother state the efficacy of a judgment upon property or persons, to he enforced hy execution. To give it the force of a. judgment in another state, it must he made a judgment there, and can only he executed In the latter as its law may permit. It must he conceded that the judgment of a state court cannot he enforced, out of the state, by an execution issued within it. This concession admits the conclusion that, under the first section of the fourth article of the constitution, judgments out of the state in which they are re”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is a vexed question on which learned courts have differed; but after all there is no absolute right to have such transfer respected, and it is only on a principle of comity that It is ever allowed. And this principle of comity -always yields when the laws and policy of the State where the property is located have prescribed a different'rule of transfer with that of the State where the owner lives.”
    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.