Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 U.S. 562 - Harter v. Kernochan

Harter v. Kernochan’s Empirical Analysis

103 U.S. 562 · 1880

Citation profile

125
cited by 125 later decisions
26
cited 26 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2005
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 125 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2005 · most notably Sutton v. English (1918), Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Schwyhart (1913)

24 federal appellate · 12 district · 5 state decisions

2601880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Meyer v. Construction Co. · County of Livingston v. Darlington · Williams v. Town of Roberts

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

  1. ““Disregarding, as we may do, the particular position, whether as complainants or defendants, assigned to the parties by the draftsman of the bill, it is apparent that the sole matter in dispute is the liability of the township upon the bonds; that upon one side of that dispute are all of the state, county, and township officers and taxpayers that were made parties, while upon the other is Kernochan, the owner of the bonds whose validity is questioned by this suit. He alone of all the parties is in a legal sense interested in the enforcement of liability upon the township. It is therefore a suit in which there, is a single controversy, embracing the whole suit, between citizens of different states, one side of which is represented alone by Kernochan, a citizen of Massachusetts, and the other by citizens of Illinois.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is the settled law of the state, as heretofore recognized by this court, that this constitutional provision was intended to define the class of persons to whom the right of taxation might be granted, and the purposes for which it might be exercised, and that the legislature could not constitutionally confer that power upon any other than corporate authorities of counties, townships, school districts, cities, towns, and villages, or for any other than corporate purposes.” See, also, Livingston Co. v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 411 ; Weightman v. Clark, 103 U. S. 256 , 259.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is one of a series of bonds issued by said township to aid in the construction of the Illinois Southeastern Railway, in pursuance of the authority conferred by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Illinois Southeastern Railway Company,’ approved Feb. 25, 1867, and an act amendatory thereof, approved Feb. 24, 1869, and an election of the legal voters of the áforesaid township, held on the tenth day of November, 1868, under the provisions of said act.”
    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.