Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 F.1d 600 - Padgett v. Post

Padgett v. Post’s Empirical Analysis

106 F. 600 · 1901

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 1935
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1935

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

301901191019201930decided

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 Edwards v. Kearzey · Barnitz v. Beverly · Mobile v. Watson · Ralls County Court v. United States · Sinclair v. Cooper

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

  1. “‘"Che law required a tax to be levied annually sufficient to pay all interest as it accrued, and the principal wben due. This was neglected, and consequently there is now a large accumulation of a debt which ought to have been paid in installments. Thus far the inhabitants have been allowed to escape taxation at the times it ought to have been laid, and to which they were under constitutional obligations to submit. The accumulation of the debt was caused by their own neglect as members of the political community which had incurred the obligation. Such being the case, we see no reason why it was not in the power of the court to order a single levy to meet the entire judgment, which was all for past-due obligations. Whether such a tax would be so oppressive as to make it proper not to have it all collected at one time was a question resting in the sound discretion of the court in ordering the collection. There is nothing here to show that there ought to have been a division.””
    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.