Shoemaker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
147 U.S. 282 · 1893
Citation profile
259 federal appellate · 76 district · 178 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 900 later decisions (91 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably United States v. Miller (1943), Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)
259 federal appellate · 76 district · 178 state decisions — followed in 37 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 Wales v. Whitney · Smith v. Whitney · Montana Railway Co. v. Warren · Mattingly v. District of Columbia
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 900 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Interest accrues either by agreement of the debtor to allow it for the use of money, or, in the nature of damages, by reason of the failure of the debtor to pay the principal when due.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“, “There are several features that are pointed to as invalidating tbe act. The first is found in the provision appointing two members of the park commission, and the argument is that, while Congress may create an office, it cannot appoint the officer; that the officer can only be appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate, and that the act itself defines these park commissioners to be public officers. * * * As, however, the two persons whose eligibility is questioned were at the time of the passage of the act and of their action under it officers of the United States who had been theretofore appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, we do not think that because additional duties, germane to the offices already held by them, were devolved upon them by the act, it was necessary that they should be again appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It cannot be doubted, and it has frequently been the case, that Congress may increase the power and duties of an existing office without thereby rendering it necessary that the incumbent should be again nominated and appointed.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The adjudicated cases likewise establish the proposition that, while the courts have power to determine whether the use for which private property is authorized by the legislature to be taken is in fact a public use, yet, if this question is decided in the affirmative, the judicial function is exhausted; that the extent to which such property shall be taken for such use rests wholly in the legislative discretion, subject only to the restraint that just compensation must be made.””
4 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.