Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 F.1d 147 - McCulloch v. Murphy

McCulloch v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

125 F. 147 · 1903

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
May 1964
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1964

6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

401903191019201930194019501960decided

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 St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · Belk v. Meagher · Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co. · Del Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. Last Chance Mining & Milling Co. · Gwillim v. Donnellan

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

  1. ““Tbe word ‘forfeiture’ is not used in the statute, although it is a comprehensive word to express results which flow from a failure to comply with the law.” McCulloch v. Murphy (C. C.) 125 Fed. 147 .”
    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.