Goddard v. Frazier’s Empirical Analysis
156 F.2d 938 · 1946
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2012
8 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 355
Relies on Betts v. Brady · Minnesota v. United States · Campbell v. Holt · United States v. Conrad Heinszen C · Hodges v. Snyder
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As a general proposition, it is said that a jurisdictional defect in a judgment cannot be cured by retroactive legislation without denial of due process of law, while retroactive legislation designed to cure non-jurisdictional or modal defects is within the constitutional power of the legislature, [citing cases]; Cooley on Constitutional Limitations, 8th Ed., P. 776; Sutherland Statutory Construction, 3rd Ed., Sec. 2206. The doctrine is based upon the sound principle that curative acts cannot cure want of authority to act at all, or validate or infuse life into utterly void proceedings without taking the property of one person and transferring it to another in violation of due process, [citing cases] The defect is not incurable unless the remedy violates due process. What constitutes a jurisdictional defect in terms of due process of law must necessarily be resolved by resort to the fundamental principles of due process itself, bearing in mind that the concept is indefinable by legalistic formulae, but is founded upon considerations of fundamental fairness. Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 , 62 S. Ct. 1252 , 86 L. Ed. 1595 ; Willoughby on Constitution, 2nd Ed., p. 1681. “In search of a ready test for determining the validity of a curative statute, the courts have established the rule that ‘a legislature may validate by subsequent act anything it might have authorized previously or may make immaterial anything it might have omitted in the original act.’ Sutherland, supra, sec. 2”
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.