Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 U.S. 677 - Douglass v. County of Pike

Douglass v. County of Pike’s Empirical Analysis

101 U.S. 677 · 1879

Citation profile

279
cited by 279 later decisions
39
cited 39 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 4 district · 118 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 279 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 (1937), Great Northern Ry Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co (1932)

46 federal appellate · 4 district · 118 state decisions — followed in 29 states

710187918801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 County of Cass v. Johnston · Fairfield v. County of Gallatin · Boyd v. Alabama · The Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company v. Henry Debolt Treasurer of Hamilton County

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

  1. ““The true rule is to give a change of judicial construction in respect to a statute the same effect in its operation on contracts and existing contract rights that would he given to a legislative amendment; that is to say, make it prospective, but not retroactive. After a statute has been settled by judicial construction, the construction becomes, so far as contract rights acquired under it are concerned, as much a part of the statute as the text itself, and a change of decision is to all intents and purposes the same in its effect on contracts as an amendment of the law by means of a legislative enactment.””
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “-That under the provisions of an act of the general- assembly, of the State of Missouri, approved May 11th, 1867, entitled, &c., the said corporation, then known as the-Kansas City and Cameron Railroad Company, on the 21st day of February, in the year 1870, was consolidated with the Hannibal and St. .Joseph Railroad Company, and all the rights, privileges, franchises, and property of said Kansas City and Cameron Railroad Company were, by said consolidation, transferred to the Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad Company, which then and thereby became the owner of and possessed of the same.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The settled judicial construction of a statute, so far as contract rights were thereunder acquired, is as much a part of the statute as the text itself, and a change of decision is the same in its effect on pre-existing contracts as a repeal or an amendment by legislative enactment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.