Rose v. Himely’s Empirical Analysis
8 U.S. 241 · 1808
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 13 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Hanson v. Denckla (1958), United States v. Pink (1942)
29 federal appellate · 13 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 12 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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 Edwards v. State · Wheelwright v. Depeyster · State v. Desforges · Bry v. Dowell
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ Was this sentence pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction? " At the threshold of this interesting enquiry, a difficulty presents itself, which is of no inconsiderable magnitude. It is this, “ Can this court examine the jurisdiction of a foreign tribunal ? “ The court pronouncing the sentence, of necessity decided in favour of its jurisdiction ; and if the decision was erroneous, that error, it is said, ought to be corrected by the superior tribunals of its own country, not by those of a foreign country. This proposition certainly cannot be admitted in its full extent. A sentence professing on its face to be the sentence of a judicial tribunal, if rendered by a self-constituted body, or by a body not empowered by its government to take cognizance of the subject it had decided, could have no legal effect whatever. The power of the court then is, of necessity, examinable to a certain extent by that tribunal which is compelled to decide whether its sentence has changed, the right of property. The power under which it acts must be looked into ; and its authority to decide questions, which it professes to decide, must be considered. “ But although the general power by which a court takes jurisdiction of causes must be inspected, in order to determine whether it may rightfully do what it professes to do, it is still a question of serious difficulty, whether the situation of the particular thing on which the sentence has passed, may be enquired into for the purpose of decid”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is conceded that the legislation' óf every country is territorial; that beyond.its own territory it can only affect its own subjects or citizens.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A seizure of a person not a subject, or of a vessel not belonging to a subject, made on the high seas for the breach of a municipal regulation, is an act which the sovereign cannot authorize. The person who makes this seizure, then, makes it on a pretext which, if true, will not justify the act, and is a marine trespasser. To a majority of the court it seems to follow that such a seizure is totally invalid; that the possession acquired by this unlawful act is his own possession, not that of the sovereign; and that such possession confers no jurisdiction on the court of the country to which the captor belongs.”
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.