Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 U.S. 13 - Dainese v. Hale

Dainese v. Hale’s Empirical Analysis

91 U.S. 13 · 1875

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 1992
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1992 · most notably Field v. Clark (1892), Blackmer v. United States (1932)

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

901875188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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

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

  1. ““But here we are met by a difficulty arising from the extreme generality of the defense set up in the plea. What are the laws of Turkey and its usages in its intercourse with other Christian nations in reference to the powers allowed to be exercised by their public ministers and consuls in judicial matters? The plea does not inform us. It leaves the court to infer or take judicial knowledge of those laws and usages. But can it do this? Foreign laws and usages are, as to us, matters of fact and not matters of law. * * * As the power of the consuls of the' United States, according to the treaties and laws as they stood in 1864, depended on the laws or usages of Turkey, those laws or usages should have been pleaded in some manner, however briefly, so that the court could have seen that the case was within them; for, fail ing to do tins, the plea was defective in substance, and judgment should have been rendered for the plaintiff on the demurrer.””
    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.