Chase v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
155 U.S. 489 · 1894
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2014 · most notably Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United States (1927), United States v. Buffalo Pitts Co. (1914)
41 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions
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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Florida v. Wells · Ex parte Jackson · United States v. Jones · United States v. Van Duzee
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No contract or purchase on behalf of the United States shall be made unless the same is authorized by law or is under an appropriation adequate to its fulfillment, except in the War and Navy Departments, for clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, or transportation, which, however, shall not exceed the necessities of the current jmar.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But congress, while recognizing the settled distinction between law, equity, and admiralty, did not intend that the records of cases brought against the government under this act should contain all that is required in suits instituted in courts of the United States under the general statutes regulating their jurisdiction and the modes of procedure therein. Neither the mode of procedure in the court of claims, nor the mode in which cases there de- it «'mined may be brought here for re-examination, were changed by the act of March 3, 1887. But under that act a judgment of a district or circuit court of the United States in an action at law brought against the government will be re-examined here only when the record contains a specific finding of facts with the conclusions of law thereon. In such cases this court will only inquire whether the judgment below is supported by the facts thus found. And we think it was also the purpose of congress to require like specific, findings or statements of fact and conclusions of law in cases in equity and in.admiralty brought under that act in tine district and circuit courts of the United States, and to restrict our inquiry in such cases, as in actions at law, to the sufficiency of the facts so found or stated to support the final judgment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That congress intended that the final determination of suits brought under this act in a district or circuit court of the United States shall be reviewed here upon a writ of error if the ease be one at law, and upon appeal if the case is one cognizable in equity or in admiralty, under the existing statutes regulating the jurisdiction of those courts.””
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.