United States v. Stowell’s Empirical Analysis
133 U.S. 1 · 1890
Citation profile
272 federal appellate · 160 district · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 845 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (1974), Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States (1989)
272 federal appellate · 160 district · 107 state decisions — followed in 27 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 Thomas Wood Junior v. United States · Dobbins's Distillery v. United States · John Conard v. The Atlantic Insurance Company New York · United States v. Hodson
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 845 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By the settled doctrine of this court, whenever a statute enacts that upon the commission of a certain act specific property used in or connected with that act shall be forfeited, the forfeiture takes effect immediately upon the commission of the act; the right to the property then vests in the United States, although their title is not perfected until judicial condemnation; the forfeiture constitutes a statutory transfer of the right to the United States at the time the offense is committed; and the condemnation, when obtained, relates back to that time, and avoids all intermediate sales and alienations, even to purchasers in good faith.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““By the now settled doctrine of this court (notwithstanding the opposing dictum of Mr. Justice McLean in United States v. Sugar, 7 Pet. 453 , 462, 463 [ 8 L. Ed. 745 ]), statutes to prevent frauds upon the revenue are considered as enacted for the public good, and to suppress a public wrong, and therefore, although they impose penalties or forfeitures, not to be construed, like penal laws generally, strictly in favor of the defendant; but they are to be fairly and reasonably construed, so as to carry out the intention of the legislature. Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197 , 210 [ 11 L. Ed. 559 ]; Cliquot’s Champagne, 3 Wall. 114 , 145 [ 18 L. Ed. 116 ]; United States v. Hodson, 10 Wall. 395 , 406 [ 19 L. Ed. 937 ]; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374 , 380 [ 23 L. Ed. 47 ] ””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the mortgage is valid as against the United States, and ... so far as concerns the real estate, the judgment of condemnation must be against the equity of redemption only.”
3 later decisions 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.