Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 107 U.S. 769 - Antoni v. Greenhow

Antoni v. Greenhow’s Empirical Analysis

107 U.S. 769 · 1882

Citation profile

182
cited by 182 later decisions
53
cited 53 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
September 2007
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 16 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 182 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2007 · most notably Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934), Royall (1886)

12 federal appellate · 16 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 18 states

3901882189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Munn v. Illinois · Sturges v. Crowninshield · Fosdick v. Schall · Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy

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

  1. ““ ‘It is competent for the states to change the form of the remedy, or to modify it otherwise, as they may see fit, provided no substantial right secured by the contract is thereby impaired. No attempt has been made to fix definitely the line between alterations of the remedy, which are to be deemed legitimate, and those which, under the form of modifying the remedy, impair substantial rights. Every case must be determined upon its own circumstances. Whenever the result last mentioned is produced, the act is within the prohibition of the constitution, and to that extent void.’ ” “In all sueh cases the question becomes, therefore, one of reasonableness, and of that the legislature is primarily the judge. Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280 , 290 [ 7 L. Ed. 679 ] ; Terry v. Anderson, ubi supra [ 95 U. S. 628 , 24 L. Ed. 365 ], We ought never to overrule the decision of the legislative department of the government unless a palpable error has been committed. If a state of facts could exist that would justify the change in a remedy which has been made, we must presume it did exist, and that the law was passed on that account. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 , 132 [ 24 L. Ed. 77 ]. Wei have nothing to do with the motives of the legislature, if what they do is within the scope of their powers under the constitution.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But it is equally well settled that changes in the forms of action and modes of proceeding do not amount to an impairment of the obligations of a contract, if an adequate and e&cacious remedy is left.” Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769 , 774, 2 Sup. Ct. 91 , 95 ( 27 L. Ed. 468 ).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we are now to' consider is not whether, if the coupon tendered is in fact genuine and such as ought, under the contract, to be received, and .the tender is kept good, the treasurer can proceed to collect the tax by distraint or such other process as the law allows, without making himself personally responsible for any trespass he may commit, but whether the act, of 1882 violates any implied obligation; of the State in respect to the remedies that may be employed for the enforcement of its contract, if the collector refuses to take the coupon.”
    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.