Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 U.S. 112 - Market Company v. Hoffman

Market Company v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis

101 U.S. 112 · 1879

Citation profile

453
cited by 453 later decisions
48
cited 48 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

153 federal appellate · 33 district · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 453 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Louisiana Public Service Commission v. Federal Communications Commission (1986), George Duncan Superintendent Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker (2001)

153 federal appellate · 33 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 13 states

7801879188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

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

  1. “[A] statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.”
    33 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The case Is one of two hundred and six complainants suing jointly. Tim decree is a single one in favor of them all and in denial of the right claimed by the company, which is of far greater value than the sum which, by the act of Congress, is the limit below which an -appeal is not allowable.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““To understand the true meaning of the clause, it is necessary to observe what the subject was in regard to which Congress attempted to legislate. In Brewer’s Lessee v. Blougher, 14 Pet. 78 , 10 L. Ed. 408 , it was said to be the undoubted duty of the court to ascertain the meaning of the Legislature from words used in the statute and the subject-matter to which it relates.””
    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.