Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 U.S. 653 - The Key City

The Key City’s Empirical Analysis

81 U.S. 653 · 1871

Citation profile

222
cited by 222 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

89 federal appellate · 47 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 222 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. (1906), Gardner v. Panama Railroad (1951)

89 federal appellate · 47 district · 9 state decisions

460187118801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Cockroft v. Vose

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

  1. “(t)hat no arbitrary or fixed period of time has been, or will be, established as an inflexible rule, but that the delay which will defeat such a suit must in every case depend on the peculiar equitable circumstances of that case.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If there had been no transfer or attachment of the property, I should hold the lien was not lost. 'When the rights of third persons have intervened, the lien will be regarded as lost if the person in whose favor it existed has had a reasonable opportunity to enforce it, and has not done so. This is a well-settled rule of the admiralty. The lien for supplies lias its origin in the necessities and convenience of commerce and navigation. It is for the interest of navigation and commerce that these liens should exist, and it is equally so that they should not be allowed to extend unnecessarily to the injury of innocent third persons. In this case there can he no doubt the libellant has had ample opportunity to enforce his lien, and it cannot now be allowed to prevail against the rights of bono, fide purchasers or attaching creditors.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.