Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 86 F.1d 370 - Jones v. Great Southern Fireproof Hotel Co.

Jones v. Great Southern Fireproof Hotel Co.’s Empirical Analysis

86 F. 370 · 1898

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 1980
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1980

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

901898190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Burgess v. Seligman · Edwards v. Kearzey · Green v. Biddle · Gelpcke et al. v. The City of Dubuque · Matter of Application of Jacobs

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

  1. ““A well-grounded exception exists where contracts and obligations have been entered upon before there has been any judicial construction of the statutes upon which the contract or obligation depends, by the highest court of the state whoso statute is involved. In such a case, if a court of the United States obtains jurisdiction of a question touching the validity, effect, or obligation of such a contract, it will, while ‘leaning to an agreement with the state court,’ exercise an independent judgment as to the validity and meaning of such contract, although the meaning and validity of state statutes may be an element in the case, and will not be bound to follow opinions of the state court construing such statute if such decisions were rendered after the rights involved in the controversy originated.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “•‘We do not consider ourselves bound to follow the decision of the state court in this case. When the transaction in controversy occurred, and when the ease was under the consideration of the circuit court, no construction of the statute had been given by the state tribunals contrary to that given by 1lie circuit court. The federal courts have an independent jurisdiction in the administration of state laws, co-ordinate with, and not subordinate to, that of the state courts, and are bound to exercise 'their own judgment as to the meaning and effect of those laws. The existence of two co-ordinate jurisdictions in the same territory is peculiar, and the results would be anomalous and inconvenient but for the exercise of mutual respect and deference. Since the ordinary administration of the law is carried on by the state courts, it necessarily happens that, by the course of their decisions, certain rules are established which become rules of property and action In the state, and have all the effect of law, and which it would be wrong to disturb. This is especially true with regard to the law of real estate and the construction of state constitutions and statutes. Such established rules are always regarded by the federal courts, no less than by the state courts themselves, as authoritative declarations of what the law is. But, where the law has not been thus settled, it is the right and -the duty of the federal courts to exercise their own judgment, as they also always do in refer”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is the mere arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unauthorized by the established principles of private right, and not having the sanction of natural justice, it is not the law of the land.”
    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.