Atkins v. The Disintegrating Company’s Empirical Analysis
85 U.S. 272 · 1873
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 19 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 189 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2020 · most notably United States v. American Trucking Associations (1940), In Re State of New York et al Petition of Walsh et al (1921)
42 federal appellate · 19 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Pollard and Pickett v. Dwight et al. · United States v. Buzzo
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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he use of the process of attachment in civil causes of maritime jurisdiction by courts of admiralty . . . has prevailed during a period extending as far back as the authentic history of those tribunals can be traced.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By Act March 3, 1887, c. 373, § 1, as corrected by Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, ‘the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum- or value of two thousand dollars, and arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states’ ‘or a controversy between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or a controversy between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects.’ 24 Stat. 552 ; 25 Stat. 434 . The intention of Congress is manifest, at least as to cases of which the courts of the several states have concurrent jurisdiction, and which involve a certain amount or value, to vest in the Circuit Courts of the United States full and effectual jurisdiction, as contemplated by the Constitution, over each of the classes of controversies above mentioned. Moreover, the present suit is for the infringement of a patent for an invention, the jurisdiction of the national courts over which depends upon the subject-matter, and not upon the parties; and, by statutes in force at the time of the passage of the acts of 1887 a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“But no person shall be arrested in one district for trial in' another in any civil action before a Circuit or District Court; and no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts • against an inhabitant of the United States by any.original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant,, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ.”
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.