Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 U.S. 342 - Gibson v. Peters

Gibson v. Peters’s Empirical Analysis

150 U.S. 342 · 1893

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 1949
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1949 · most notably Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Bradford (1936), United States v. Weitzel (1918)

23 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions

290189319001910192019301940decided

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 Price v. Abbott · Pacific Nat Bank of Boston v. Mixter · Frelinghuysen v. Baldwin · Hendee v. Connecticut & P. R. R.

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

  1. ““The controlling question, therefore, in the present case is whether Johnson was under a -duty imposed upon him as district attorney to perform the services for which he here claims special compensation. If such was his duty as defined by law, then he is forbidden by statute from receiving any special compensation on account of such services; this for the reason that no appropriation for such compensation has been made by any statute explicitly stating that it was for such additional pay, extra allowance or compensation. Rev.St. §§ 1764, 1765 [ 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 69 , 70], On the other hand, if his duties as district attorney did not embrace such services as he rendered, and for which he here claims special compensation, then he is entitled to be paid therefor without reference to the regular salary, pay, or emoluments attached to his office.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It ought not to he difficult, under any reasonable construction of these statutory provisions, to ascertain the intention of congress. A distinct provision is made for the salary of a district attorney, and he cannot receive, on that account, any more than the statute prescribes. But the statute is equally explicit in declaring, in respect to compensation that may be ‘taxed and allowed,’ that he shall receive no other than that specified in sections 823 to 827, inclusive, ‘except in cases otherwise expressly provided by law.’ It also declares that no officer in any branch of the public service shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever, for any service or duty, unless the same is expressly authorized by law, or unless the appropriation therefor explicitly states that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation. No room is left here for construction. It is not expressly provided by law that a district attorney shall receive compensation for services performed by him in conducting suits arising out of the provisions of the national banking law, in which the United States or any of its officers or agents are parties. Without such express provision, compensation for services of that character cannot be taxed,, allowed, or paid. Nor can'the expenses of the receivership be held to include compensation- to the district attorney for conducting a suit in which the receiver is a party, for the obvious reason that the st”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “• “The following and no other compensation shall be taxed and allowed to attorneys, solicitors and proctors in the courts of the United States, to district attorneys, clerks of the circuit and district courts, marshals, commissioners, witnesses, jurors, and printers in the several states and territories, except in cases otherwise expressly provided by law. But nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit attorneys, solicitors, and proctors from charging to and receiving from their clients, other than the government, such reasonable compensation for their services, in addition to the taxable costs, as may be in accordance with general usage in their respective states, or may be agreed upon- between the parties.””
    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.