Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 U.S. 391 - Thompson v. Maxwell

Thompson v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis

95 U.S. 391 · 1877

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2010 · most notably Root v. Woolworth (1893), Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch (1888)

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 15 states

220187718801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Paulina Whiting v. The Bank of the United States · Putnam v. Day

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

  1. “It is manifest that the object of this bill, especially after being amended, was to set aside the decree made in the original cause, and to substitute therefor a new decree supposed to be more advantageous to the complainants, upon the same matters which were before the court and under its consideration in the said cause. Under the guise of a bill for quieting title it was in reality a bill of review.”). 19 . See also Scotten, 235 U.S. at 411 , 35 S.Ct. 125 (explaining that a bill of review encompassed only manifest legal errors and”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““A decree for carrying out a settlement and compromise of a suit is certainly not, of itself, erroneous. When made by consent, it is presumed to be made in view of the existing facts, and that these were in the knowledge of the parties. In the absence of fraud in obtaining it, such a decree cannot be impeached.” Thompson v. Maxwell, 95 U. S. 391 .”
    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.