Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 U.S. 199 - Case v. Terrell

Case v. Terrell’s Empirical Analysis

78 U.S. 199 · 1870

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 9 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2007 · most notably United States v. Lee (1882), Minnesota v. United States (1939)

14 federal appellate · 9 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 11 states

16018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

  1. ““As to the receiver, the claim, if any such be made, is not worth serious consideration. He represents the bank, its stockholders, its creditors, and does not in any sense represent the government.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It may very well admit of doubt whether it is within his competency to submit himself, in the exercise of duties specially confided to liim by acts of Congress, to the control of the courts, and especially of those which can as sert no such jurisdiction by reason of their territorial limits. We are not called upon here to decide- this question. But we hare no hesitation in holding that however he 'may submit himself to the jurisdiction of those courts, and consent to be governed in his official action by their decrees, so far as they affect rights of parties who may come into court and be impleaded in the same suit, he has no authority to subject the United States to such jurisdiction, and to submit the rights of the government to litigation in any court, without some provision of law authorizing him so to do.””
    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.