Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 F.1d 497 - Taylor v. Kercheval

Taylor v. Kercheval’s Empirical Analysis

82 F. 497 · 1897

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1989

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

301897190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 William Marbury v. James Madison · In re Debs · Sawyer · Luther v. Borden · United States v. Eaton

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

  1. ““It is firmly settled that courts of chancery concern themselves only with matters of property and the maintenance of civil rights; such courts have no jurisdiction in matters of an executive or political nature; nor do they interfere with the duties of any department of the government except under special circumstances, and then only when necessary to the protection of rights of property; nor can they interfere to restrain criminal or immoral acts unless they affect or threaten to invade rights of property.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The subject-matter of their jurisdiction relates to civil property, * * * actual or threatened, is the foundation of chancery jurisdiction. It is not concerned with matters of a political nature. * * * The general principle that equity possesses no power to revise, control, or correct the action, of public, political, or executive officers or bodies, is, of course, well understood.””
    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.