Assessors v. Osbornes’s Empirical Analysis
76 U.S. 567 · 1869
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 19 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), Lindh v. Murphy (1997)
28 federal appellate · 19 district · 10 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.
Relationships
Relies on Yeaton v. The United States · Livingston Gilchrist v. The Maryland Insurance Company
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Jurisdiction . . . was conferred by an Act of Congress, and when that Act of Congress was repealed the power to exercise such jurisdiction was withdrawn, and inasmuch as the repealing act contained no saving clause, all pending actions fell, as the jurisdiction depended entirely upon the Act of Congress.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the action is originally commenced in the Circuit Court” — which would be here the District Court — “the cause must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, unless it appears that the parties were citizens of different States. * * * When the jurisdiction of the District Court depends upon citizenship of the parties it is not enough that it does not appear that they are not citizens of the same state, but the facts necessary to give the District Court jurisdiction must be distinctly alleged. District Courts are courts of special piridiction, and therefore they cannot take jurisdiction of any case, either civil or criminal, where they are not authorized to do so by an Act of Congress.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since the passage of the Act and the repeal of the fiftieth section of the prior act, the Circuit Courts have no jurisdiction of cases arising under the internal revenue laws to recover back duties illegally assessed and paid under protest, unless the plaintiff and defendant therein are citizens of different States. * * Stat. at L. 171, sec. 67.”
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.