French Trustee v. Hay’s Empirical Analysis
89 U.S. 250 · 1874
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 18 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1995 · most notably O'Shea v. Littleton (1974), Mitchum v. Foster (1972)
54 federal appellate · 18 district · 14 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 Logan v. Patrick · Connoyer v. Schaeffer
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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It (the bill then pending) is auxiliary and dependent in its character, as much so as if it were a bill of review. The court having jurisdiction in per-sonam had power to require the defendant to do or to refrain from doing anything beyoiid the limits of its territorial jurisdiction which it might have required to be done or omitted within the limits of such territory. Having the possession and jurisdiction of the ease, that jurisdiction embraced everything in the case, and every question arising which could be determined in it until it reached its termination and the jurisdiction was exhausted. While the jurisdiction lasted it was exclusive, and could not be trenched upon by any other tribunal.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The provision of section 5 of the act of March 2, 1793, that a writ of injunction shall not be granted to stay proceedings in any court of a state, has never been held to have, and cannot properly be construed to have, any application, except to proceedings commenced in a state court before the proceedings are commenced in the federal court; otherwise, after suit brought in a federal court, a party defendant could, by resorting to a suit in a state court, defeat in many ways the effective jurisdiction and action of the federal court after It had obtained full jurisdiction of person and subject-matter. Moreover the provision of the act of 1793 (noAAr section 720. Rev. St.) must be construed in connection with the provision of section 14 of the act of September 24, 17S9, that the federal courts shall have power to issue all writs which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions. 1 Stat. 81 , 82.””
4 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.