Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 U.S. 791 - Wright v. Nagle

Wright v. Nagle’s Empirical Analysis

101 U.S. 791 · 1879

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co (1898), McCullough v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1898)

9 federal appellate · 5 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states

360187918801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Jefferson Branch Bank v. Skelly · Young v. Harrison · Muller v. Dows · Shorter v. Smith

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

  1. ““A grant of this franchise from the public in some form is therefore necessary to enable an individual to establish and maintain a toll bridge for public travel. The Legislature of the state alone has authority to make such a grant, it may exercise this authority by direct legislation, or through agencies duly established, having power for that purpose. The grant when made binds the public, and is, directly or indirectly, the act of the state. The easement is a legislative grant, whether made directly by the Legislature itself, or by any one of its properly constituted instrumentalities.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If the court erred in construing the statute, and in holding that there was no contract, then the question is directly presented, by the pleadings and the stipulation as to the facts, whether the subsequent action of the commissioners of roads and revenue is, in its legal effect, equivalent to a law of the state impairing the obligation of the contract as it was made. In this way, it seems to us, a federal question is raised upon the record, which gives us jurisdiction.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “YVe think, also, that the motion to dismiss must be overruled. It is true, the court below disposed of the case by deciding that the state statutes did not authorize the inferior court to grant Miller an exclusive right to maintain bridges within the designated limits, and that in so doing it gave a construction”
    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.