Hall v. Lanning’s Empirical Analysis
91 U.S. 160 · 1875
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2001 · most notably Hanson v. Denckla (1958), Hansberry v. Lee (1940)
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 22 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 Thompson v. Whitman · Montgomery Bell v. James Morrison Anthony Butler and Jonathan Taylor · James D'Arcy v. Morris Ketchum Thomas Rogers and Edward Bement Copartners Trading Under the Name and Firm of Ketchum Rogers and Bement · Knowles v. The Gaslight and Coke Company
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) “Neither the constitutional provision that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state, nor the act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof, prevents an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the. court by which a judgment offered in evidence was rendered.” (2) “The record of a judgment rendered in another state may be contradicted as to the facts necessary to give the court jurisdiction; and, if it be shown that snch facts did not exist, the record will ho a nullity, notwithstanding it may recite that they did exist.” (8) “Want of jurisdiction may be shown, either as to the subject-matter or the person, or, in proceedings in rem, as to the thing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Davis“Yarious effects and consequences are attributed to such judgments in the States in which they are rendered. They are generally held to bind the common property of the joint debtors, as well as the sepa ate property of those served with process, when such property is situated in the State, but not the separate property of those not served; and whilst they are binding personally on the former, they are regardéd as either not personally binding at all, or only prima, facie binding on the latter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Renaud v. Abbott““A member of a partnership residing in one state, not served with process and not appearing, is not personally bound by a judgment recovered in another state against all the partners after a dissolution of the firm, although the other members were served, or did appear and' cause an appearance to be entered for all, and although the law of the state where the suit was brought authorized such judgment.””
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.