Ex parte McNiel’s Empirical Analysis
80 U.S. 236 · 1871
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 57 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 272 later decisions (62 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917)
50 federal appellate · 57 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 The Steamer St. Lawrence
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 272 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A party forfeits nothing by going into a federal tribunal. Jurisdiction having attached, his case is tried there upon the same principles, and its determination is governed by the same considerations, as if it bad been brought in the proper state tribunal of 1lie same locality.” Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 236 , 243, 20 L. Ed. 624 ; Davis v. Gray, 10 Wall. 203 , 221, 21 L. Ed. 447 .”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It must be admitted that pilot regulations are regulations of commerce. A pilot is as much a part of the commercial marine as the hull of the ship and the helm by which it is guided; and half-pilotage, as it is called, is a necessary and usual part of every system of such provisions. Pilots are a meritorious class, and the service in which they are engaged is one of great importance to the public. It is frequently full of hardship, and sometimes of peril; night and day, in winter and summer, in tempest and calm, they must be present at their proper places, and ready to perform the duties of their vocation. They are thus shut out for the time being from more lucrative pursuits and confined to a single field of employment. » * * The precise question we are considering came before this court in Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the City of Philadelphia [ 12 How. 299 , 13 L. Ed. 996 ]. The suit was for half-pilotage under a statute of Pennsylvania, substantially the same, in this particular, with the statute of New York. The plaintiff recovered in -the lower court, and the Supreme Court of the state affirmed the judgment. The case was brought here for review by a writ of error under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act [Act Sept. 24, 1879, c. 20, 1 Stat. 85 ], and was argued with exhaustive learning and ability. This court, after the fullest consideration of the subject, also affirmed the judgment. We are entirely satisfied with that adjudication, and reaffirm the doctrines which i”
3 later decisions 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.