Cornett v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
87 U.S. 226 · 1873
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 11 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1999 · most notably Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1923), Reed v. Allen (1932)
40 federal appellate · 11 district · 33 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.
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““.Turisdietion is ¡lie power to hear and determine. To make tlie order of sale required the exercise of this power. It was the business and duty of the cénit to ascertain and decide whether the facts were such as called for that action. The question always arises in such proceedings, and muse be determined, whether, upon the case as presented, afiirniative or negative action is proper. The power to review and reverso the decision so made is clearly appellate in its character, and can be exercised only by an appellate tribunal in a proceeding had directly for that purpose. It cannot and ought not to he done by another court, in another ease, whore the subject is presented incidentally, and a reversal sought in such collateral proceeding. The settled rule of law is that, jurisdiction having attached in the original case, everything done within the power of that jurisdiction, when collaterally questioned, is to be held conclusive of the rights of the parties, unless impeached for fraud. Every intendment is made to support the proceeding. It is regarded as if it were regular in all things, and irreversible for error. In the absence of fraud, no question can be collaterally entertained as to anything lying within the jurisdictional sphere of the original case. Infinite confusion and mischiefs would ensue if the rule were otherwise. These remarks apply to the order of sale here in question.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. White v. Crow · Laing v. Rigney“As regards public officers, `acts done which presuppose the existence of other acts to make them legally operative, are presumptive proofs of the latter.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re OM
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.