Williams v. Heard’s Empirical Analysis
140 U.S. 529 · 1891
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 9 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2006 · most notably Burlingham v. Crouse (1913), Stanley v. Schwalby (1893)
33 federal appellate · 9 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Erwin v. United States · Cornelius Comegys and Andrew Pettit v. Ambrose Vasse · Phelps v. McDonald · United States v. Weld
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [Wjhile the claimant was remediless with respect to any proceedings by which he might be able to retrench his losses, nevertheless there was at all times a moral obligation on the part of the government to do justice to those who had suffered in property.... There was thus at all times a possibility that the government would see that [the claims] were paid. There was a possibility of their being at some time valuable. They were rights growing out of property; rights it is true, that were not enforceable until after the passage of the act of congress for the distribution of the fund. But the act of congress did not create the rights. They had existed at all times since the losses occurred. They were created by reason of losses having been suffered. All that the Act of Congress did was to provide a remedy for the enforcement of the right.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burgess v. Sikes · Burgess v. G“[N]o individual claimant had, as a matter of strict legal or equitable right, any lien upon the fund awarded, nor was Congress under any legal or equitable obligation to pay any claim out of the proceeds of that fund.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not universally, though it may ordinarily be one test of right, that it may be enforced in a court of justice. Claims and debts due. from a sovereign are not ordinarily capable of being so enforced. Neither the King of Great Britain, nor the govern ment of the United States, is suable in the ordinary courts of justice for debts--due by either. Yet, who will doubt, that such debts, are rights?”
2 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.