Ex parte Jordan’s Empirical Analysis
94 U.S. 248 · 1876
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1943 · most notably In Re Buder et al (1926), United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen (1904)
14 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 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.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that the petitioners were not parties to the suit until after the bill was taken as confessed; but it is clear that the decree pro eonfesso did not end the case, because, before the final decree was rendered, it was found necessary to have the reference before a master, to compute, ascertain, and report, Before the master could comply with this order, proof had to be taken. * ;!- * When this reference was made, the petitioners were defendants and actors in respect to the litigation. They certainly had the right to contend before the master, and to except to his report.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“has the right to it. The language of the statute is, ‘shall be allowed,’ which means '”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Hecht Co.
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.