Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 U.S. 274 - Justices v. Murray

Justices v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

76 U.S. 274 · 1869

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
31
cited 31 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
December 1989
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1989 · most notably New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1984)

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 16 state decisions

1601869187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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

  1. ““But the other clause of the amendment is still more Important, and we read it as a substantial and independent clause; ‘No fact tried by a jury shall bo otherwise re-examined, in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.’ This is a prohibition to the courts of the United States to re-examine any facts, tried by a court, in any other manner. The only modes known to the common law to re-examine such facts are the granting of a new trial by the court where the issue was tried, or to which the record was properly returnable; or the award of a venire facias de novo by an appellate court, for some error of law which intervened in the proceedings.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The ratio decidendi, the lino of thought pervading and controlling the whole opinion, was that the seventh amendment undoubtedly prohibited any court of tile United States from re-examining facts once tried by a jury in a lower court of the United States, and that there was no reason why (he prohibition should not equally apply to a case brought into a court of the United States from a state court. ‘In both instances, the cases are disposed of by the same system of laws and by the same judicial tribunal.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The alternative and peremptory mandamus against the Supreme Court of New York was allowed by consent of the counsel for the defendants, with a view to present the question raised and decided in the case. The Circuit Court had refused to issue it against the court, and issued it only against the clerk. This is stated to prevent the case from being cited as an authority for the power, and without intending to express any opinion on this subject.”
    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.