McBurney v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
99 U.S. 567 · 1878
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2011 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), Adepegba v. Hammons (1996)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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.
Relationships
Relies on Southwick v. . Southwick · People v. Mortimer · Robertson v. Carson · Rader v. Southeasterly Road District of Union
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' “ I. That all the matters therein have been already adjudged in her favor by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina. “II. That tbe complainant is barred of his present action by a judgment of the said court in her favor on the matter in controversy. “ TTT. That this court is without jurisdiction because a prior suit on the like matter is pending in the aforesaid court of the United States, which, by its receiver, has possession of the subject matter of this suit. “ IY. That the bond and mortgage sued on are void under the laws of the United States. “ Y. That the defendant holds title to Dean Hall plantation, the property involved in this suit and mentioned in the complaint in the above-entitled suit, under an authority exercised under the United States, to wit, under a. conveyance from the United States marshal for the district of South Carolina, made under a decree of the United States Circuit Court, for the said district, all of which will more fully appear by her answer. “ The controversy in said suit is also wholly between citizens of different states, viz., between the said C. T. Dunham, who, as your petitioner is informed and avers, was, at the commencement of said suit, and now is, a citizen of the state of South Carolina, and your petitioner, who was, at the commencement of said' suit, and now is,- a citizen of the state of Massachusetts; or the controversy in said 'suit is wholly be tween Mary A. Hyatt, who .was, at the commenceme”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carson v. Dunham
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.