Hendricks v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1882
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2014
13 state decisions
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.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘"‘By article 8, all laws and regulations which, may be necessary for the preservation of fish in the river Potomac or the river Pocomoke, within the limits of Virginia, shall be made with the mutual consent and approbation of both states. The effect of this article is to give to the state of Virginia concurrent jurisdiction with the state of Maryland over the Potomac from shore to shore, and over that part of the Pocomoke river which is within the limits of Virginia, to enact such laws, with the consent and approval of Maryland, as may he deemed necessary and proper for the preservation of fish in said waters.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Marsh
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.