Ex parte Schollenberger’s Empirical Analysis
96 U.S. 369 · 1877
Citation profile
105 federal appellate · 71 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 595 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1939), Angel v. Bullington (1947)
105 federal appellate · 71 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 28 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 Lafayette Insurance v. French · Railway Company v. Whitton's Administrator · Insurance Company v. Morse · Henry Toland v. Horatio Sprague
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 595 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The act of congress prescribing the place where a person may be sued is not one affecting the general jurisdiction of the courts. It is rather in the nature of a personal exemption in favor of a defendant, and is one which he may waive. If the citizenship of the parties is sufficient, a defendant may consent to be sued anywhere he pleases, and certainly jurisdiction will not be ousted because he has consented.””
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A corporation cannot change its residence or its citizenship. It can have its legal home only at the place where it is located by or under the authority of its charter; but it may by its agents transact business anywhere.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Assunie that it is true, as defendant alleges, that this is not a case in which jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the controversy is between citizens of different states, but that it comes within the scope of that other clause, which provides that ‘no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts, against any person, by any original process or proceeding, in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant,’ still the right to insist upon suit only in the one district is a personal privilege which lie may waive and he does waive it by pleading to the merits.””
6 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.