Claflin v. Houseman’s Empirical Analysis
93 U.S. 130 · 1876
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 35 district · 292 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 601 later decisions (92 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Brown v. Allen (1953), Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University (1989)
77 federal appellate · 35 district · 292 state decisions — followed in 43 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 Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's · William Booth v. Ferdinand Clark · Eyster v. Gaff
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 601 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he laws of the United States are laws in the several States, and just as much binding on the citizens and courts thereof as the State laws are.... The two together form one system of jurisprudence, which constitutes the law of the land for the State; and the courts of the two jurisdictions are not foreign to each other....”
31 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hines v. Lowrey · Brown v. Gerdes“[I]n every case in which they were not expressly excluded by the future acts of the national legislature, [state courts] will of course take cognizance of the causes to causes to which those acts may give birth. This I infer from the nature of judiciary power, and from the general genius of the system. The judiciary power of every government looks beyond its own local or municipal laws, and in civil cases lays hold of all subjects of litigation between parties within its jurisdiction, though the causes of dispute are relative to the laws of the most distant part of the globe. 14 Those of Japan, not less than of New York, may furnish the objects of legal discussion to our courts. When in addition to this we consider the State governments and the national governments, as they truly are, in the light of kindred systems, and as parts of ONE WHOLE, the inference seems to be conclusive, that the State courts would have a concurrent jurisdiction in all cases arising under the laws of the Union, where it was not expressly prohibited.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When ... we consider the State governments and the National governments, as they truly are, in light of kindred systems, and as parts of one whole, the inference seems to be conclusive, that the State courts would have - concurrent jurisdiction in all cases a ing under the laws of the Union, wciere it was not expressly prohibited.” (Emphasis in original)”
2 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.