The Rio Grande’s Empirical Analysis
90 U.S. 458 · 1874
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property in Greene & Tuscaloosa Counties (1991), Republic National Bank of Miami v. United States (1992)
77 federal appellate · 8 district · 13 state decisions
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 Smith v. Adsit · Jennings v. Carson
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the appeal which was allowed by that court on the 11th of May, operated as a stay of all proceedings upon or under the judgment of dismissal of the libels made on that same day, and but a 'few minutes before. The appeal was well allowed, the bonds are in compliance with the order of the court so far as it appears, were accepted by the clerk, and were not objected to by the parties. We cannot agree with' the argument of the claimant that under such circumstances the Circuit Court in Alabama had no jurisdiction of the appeal, and that its decree was void. “The appeal stayed all proceedings, and the parties were bound to keep the vessel where it then was, to wit, in the possession of the court. The appeal was taken and allowed before any order of discharge was granted, and the bonds required to' make the appeal a stay of proceedings were given within the time required by the statute. “The removal of the vessel pending an appeal to the Circuit Court was illegal, in violation of the express directions of the statute regulating appeals. “We do not understand the law to be that an actual and continuous possession of the res is required to sustain the jurisdiction of the court. When the vessel was seized by the order of the court and brought within its control the jurisdiction was complete. A subsequent improper removal cannot defeat such jurisdiction. ^ «!» s¡» “We hold the rule to be that a valid seizure and actual control of the res by the marshal gives jurisdiction of the su”
9 later decisions 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.