McNitt v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
83 U.S. 352 · 1872
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1993 · most notably Milwaukee County v. M. E. White Co. (1935), McArthur v. Scott (1885)
10 federal appellate · 5 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 18 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 McConnell v. Pedigo
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Jurisdiction is authority ro hear and determine. It is an axiomatic proposition that, when jurisdiction has attached, whatever errors may subsequently occur in its exercise, the proceeding being coratn judice, can be impeached collaterally only for fraud.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But there is a comprehensive and more conclusive answer to all the objections to the sale which have been considered, and to others suggested which have not been adverted to. “Upon the filing of the notice with the proof of publication, and the subsequent filing of the petition of the administrator for authority to sell, the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the case. No presumption on that subject is necessary. Jurisdiction is authority to hear- and determine. It is an .axiomatic proposition that when jurisdiction has attached, whatever errors may subsequently occur in its exercise, the proceeding being coram judice, can be impeached collaterally only for fraud. In all other respects it is as conclusive as if -it were irreversible in a proceeding for error. The order of sale before us is Within this rule. Grignon’s Lessee v. Astor et al., 2 How. 341 , was, like this, a case of a sale by an administrator. In that case, this court said: 'The purchaser under it is not bound to look beyond the decree. If there is error in it of the most palpable kind, if the court which rendered it have, in the exercise of jurisdiction,, disregarded, misconstrued, or disobeyed the plain provisions of the law which gave them the power to hear and determine the case before them, the title of the purchaser is as much protected as if the adjudication would stand the test of a writ of error;, and so where an appeal is given, but not taken, in the time allowed by law.’ This case and the case of Voorh”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where jurisdiction has attached, whatever errors may occur subsequently in its exercise, the proceedings being coram judice, cannot be impeached colláterally except for fraud.””
1 later decision 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.