Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 U.S. 188 - Kerr v. Clampitt

Kerr v. Clampitt’s Empirical Analysis

95 U.S. 188 · 1877

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 1933
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1933 · most notably Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. (1933), Holmgren v. United States (1910)

24 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

1201877188018901900191019201930decided

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 Casgrave v. Howland. · Sparrow v. Strong

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

  1. ““If the new trial be*, asked for irregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury, or adverse party, or for abuse of discretion by which either party was prevented from having a fair trial, or for misconduct of the jury, or accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against, or for newly discovered evidence, the application must be made upon affidavits. * * ⅜ But whether the application be made upon affidavits, or a statement thus prepared, the rulings thereon, whether of the district court originally, or of the Supreme Court of the territory on appeal, are not subject to review by this tribunal. We have no jurisdiction to revise the action of an inferior court upon the question of granting or refusing a new trial, however meritorious the grounds presented for its consideration or erroneous its decision.””
    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.