United States v. Gleeson’s Empirical Analysis
90 F. 778 · 1898
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1961
5 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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 Hilton v. Guyot · United States v. Throckmorton · Marshall v. Holmes · Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran · Graver v. Faurot
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Precisely the same question — as to tbe effect of Marshall v. Holmes upon U. S. v. Throckmorton — was before us in the case of Bailey v. Sundberg, 1 U. S. App. 101, 1 C. C. A. 387 , 49 Fed. 583 . In that cause the libelant, who had been defeated in an action in rem against a steamship, brought a new action in personam against her owners. This court held that the decree in the earlier suit precluded Bailey from a re-examination of the same questions in the later suit. Subsequently he amended his libel, charging that, without negligence or laches or other fault on the part of the libelants, the respondent, by his false evidence given in the action in rem, enabled the claimants of the steamship to obtain the judgment therein, which judgment was set up as res adjudicata. Exceptions to this amendment were sustained by the District Court, and the libel dismissed. Upon appeal to this court the decree of the District Court was affirmed upon .the authority of U. S. v. Throckmorton, no opinion being written. The libelant thereupon twice appealed to the Supreme Court for a certiorari, upon briefs which presented with very great fullness the apparent conflict between the two cases in 98 U. S. (25 L. Ed.) and 141 U. S. and 12 Sup. Ct. (35 L. Ed.) and urged upon the consideration of the court that the judges in the Second Circuit were following the earlier, rather than the later, decision. Both applications were denied. 145 U. S. 628 , 12 Sup. Ct. 259 ; 154 U. S. 494 , 14 Sup. Ct. 1142 . ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nelson v. Meehan
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.