Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 U.S. 470 - Amy v. Dubuque

Amy v. Dubuque’s Empirical Analysis

98 U.S. 470 · 1878

Citation profile

135
cited by 135 later decisions
23
cited 23 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
September 2002
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 14 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 135 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2002 · most notably Order of United Commercial Travelers of America v. Wolfe (1947), Scovill v. Thayer (1881)

26 federal appellate · 14 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 17 states

23018781880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 William M'Elmoyle for the Use of Isaac Bailey v. John J Cohen · Gelpcke et al. v. The City of Dubuque · Leffingwell v. Warren · Davie v. Briggs · Board of Commissioners v. Aspinwall

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

  1. ““It is not to be questioned that laws limiting the time of bringing suits constitute a part of the lex fori of any country; they are laws for administering justice, one of the most sacred and important of sovereign rights. It is as little to be questioned that the courts of the United States, in the absence of legislation upon the subject by Congress, recognize the statutes of limitations of the several states, and give them the same construction and effect which are given by local tribunals.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “upon the non-payment at maturity of each coupon the holder had a complete cause of action. In other words, he might have instituted his action to recover the amount thereof at their respective maturities. From that date, •therefore, the statute commenced to run against them. ... . Upon principle, his failure or neglect to detach the coupon and present it for payment at the time when, by contract, he was entitled to demand payment could not prevent the statute from running.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it is not to be questioned that laws limiting the time of bringing suit constitute a part of the lex fori of every country; they- aré laws for administer- ' ing justice, one of the most sacred and important of sovereign rights ;”
    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.