Miller v. Mayor Etc of the City of New York’s Empirical Analysis
109 U.S. 385 · 1883
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 15 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 159 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States (1893)
40 federal appellate · 15 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 18 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 The Daniel Ball · Gilman v. Philadelphia · Escanaba Lake Michigan Transp Co v. City of Chicago · South Carolina v. Georgia
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 159 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. “The execution of a vast number of measures authorized by Congress and carried out under 'the direction of heads of departments would be defeated if such were not the case. The efficiency of an act as a declaration of legislative will must, of course, come from Congress, but the ascertainment of the contingency upon which the act shall take effect may be left to such agencies as it may designate.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““A lawful structure and post road for the conveyance of the mails of the United States. Provided, that the said bridge shall he so constructed and built as not to obstruct, impair, or injuriously modify the navigation of the river; and in order to secure a compliance with these conditions the company, previous to commencing the construction of the bridge, shall submit to the secretary of war a plan of the bridge, with a detailed map of the river at the proposed site of the bridge, and for the distance of a mile above and below the site, exhibiting the depths and currents at all points of the same, together with all other information touching said bridge and river as may be deemed requisite by the secretary of war to determine whether the said bridge, when built, will conform to the prescribed conditions of the act, not to obstruct, impair, or injuriously modify the navigation of the river.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““That the secretary of war is hereby authorized and directed, upon receiving said plan and map and other information, and upon being satisfied that a bridge built on such plan, and at said locality, will conform to the prescribed conditions of this act, not to obstruct, impair, or injuriously modify the navigation of'said river, to notify the said company that lie approves the same, and upon receiving such notification the said company may proceed to the erection of said bridge, conforming strictly to the approved plan and location. But until the secretary of war approve the plan and location of said bridge, and .notify said company of the same in writing, the bridge shall not be built, or commenced; and should any change be made in the plan of the bridge during the progress of the work thereon, such change shall be subject likewise to the approval of the secretary of war.””
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.