Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 U.S. 18 - District of Columbia v. Hutton

District of Columbia v. Hutton’s Empirical Analysis

143 U.S. 18 · 1892

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
April 1981
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 9 district · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1981 · most notably Watt v. Alaska (1981), The Paquete Habana (1900)

35 federal appellate · 9 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 18 states

2301892190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Murdock v. City of Memphis · United States v. Tynen · United States v. Claflin · Town of South Ottawa v. Perkins · Fisk v. Henarie

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

  1. ““We are not unmindful of the rule that repeals by implication arc not favored. But there is another rule of construction equally sound and well settled which we think applies to this case. Stated in the language of this court in United States v. Tynen [ 20 L. Ed. 153 ], 11 Wall. 88 , 92, it is this: ‘When there are two acts on the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both if possible. But, if the two are repugnant in any of their provisions, the latter act, without any repealing clause, operates to the extent of the repugnancy as a repeal of the first; and even where two acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first, and embraces new provisions, plainly showing that it was intended as a substitute for the first act, it will operate as a repeal of that act.’ ””
    9 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.