Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 U.S. 613 - Erskine Collector v. Hohnbach

Erskine Collector v. Hohnbach’s Empirical Analysis

81 U.S. 613 · 1871

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
May 2013
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2013 · most notably Kilbourn v. Thompson (1880), Royal Indemnity Co. v. United States (1941)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states

170187118801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Willard v. Presbury

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. ““Whatever may have been the conflict at one time in the adjudged cases as to the extent of protection afforded to ministerial officers acting in obedience to process, or orders issued to them by tribunals or officers invested by law with authority to pass upon and determine particular facts and render judgment thereon, it is well settled now that, if the officer or tribunal possess jurisdiction over the subject-matter upon which judgment is passed, with power to issue an order or process for the enforcement of such judgment, and the order or process issued thereon to the ministerial officer is regular on its face, showing no departure from the law, or defect of jurisdiction over the person or property affected, then, and in such cases, the order or process will give full and entire protection to the ministerial officer in its regular enforcment against any prosecution which the party aggrieved thereby may institute against him, although serious errors may have been committed by the officer or tribunal in reaching the conclusion or judgment upon which the order or process is issued.””
    6 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.