Holden v. State of Minnesota’s Empirical Analysis
137 U.S. 483 · 1890
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Weaver v. Graham (1981), Holden v. Hardy (1898)
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Crowley v. Christensen · Medley · Commonwealth v. Costley · In re Pennsylvania Co.
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These are regulations which the legislature, in its wisdom, and for the public good, could legally prescribe . . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“account of the details of such execution, beyond the statement of the fact that such convict was on the day in question duly executed according to law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““These provisions were not repealed by the act of April 24, 1889 (Gen. Laws Minn. 1889, p. 66, c. 20). In respect to the first and second sections of that act, it is clear that they contain nothing of substance that was not in sections 11 and 12 of chapter 118 of the General Statutes of 1878. And it is equally clear that the provisions of an existing statute cannot be regarded as inconsistent with a subsequent act merely because the latter re-enacts or repeats those provisions. As the act of 1889 repealed only such previous acts and parts of acts as were inconsistent with its provisions, it is inaccurate to say that that statute contained no saving clause whatever. By necessary implication, previous statutes that were consistent with its provisions were unaffected.””
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.