Koshkonong v. Burton’s Empirical Analysis
104 U.S. 668 · 1881
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 23 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 163 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2021 · most notably Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co. (1904), Campbell v. City of Haverhill (1895)
24 federal appellate · 23 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 24 states
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 Sturges v. Crowninshield · Terry v. Anderson · Gelpcke et al. v. The City of Dubuque · Sohn v. Waterson · Aurora City v. West
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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was undoubtedly within the constitutional power of the Legislature to require as to existing causes of action that suits for their enforcement should be barred unless brought within a period less than that prescribed at the time the contract was made or the liability incurred from which the cause of action arose. The exertion of this power is, of course, subject to the fundamental condition that a reasonable time, taking all the circumstances into consideration, be given by the new law for the commencement of an action before the bar takes effect” — citing eases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When counsel, in Ogden v. Blackledge, 2 Cranch, 272 , 277, announced that to declare what the law is, or has been, is a judicial power, to declare what the law shall be is legislative, and that one of the fundamental principles of all our governments is that the legislative power shall be separated from the judicial, this court interrupted them with the observation that it was unnecessary .to argue that point.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * If the proviso, in its application to some cases, is obnoxious to the objection that it does not allow sufficient time within which to sue before the bar takes effect, and is therefore unconstitutional, as impairing the obligation of the contract between the town and its existing creditors, it does not follow that the entire act would fall and become inoperative. The result, in such case, would be, that the plaintiff, and other holders of the coupons, would have not simply one year, but * * * a reasonable time after its passage within which to sue.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Patterson v. Rousney
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.