Frost v. Wenie’s Empirical Analysis
157 U.S. 46 · 1895
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 23 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably South Carolina v. United States (1905), Ward v. Race Horse (1896)
56 federal appellate · 23 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 12 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 United States v. Tynen · Town of Red Rock v. Henby · King v. Cornell · Henderson's Tobacco
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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * It is well settled that repeals by implication are not to be favored. And, where two statutes cover, in whole or in part, the same matter, and are not absolutely irreconcilable, the duty of the court — no purpose to repeal being clearly expressed or indicated — is, if possible, to give effect to both. In other words, it must not be supposed that the legislature intended by a later statute to repeal a prior one on the same subject, unless the last statute is so broad in its terms, and so clear and explicit in its words, as to show that it was intended to cover the whole subject, and therefore to displace the prior statute. * * * ” (Italics ours.)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where two statutes cover, in whole or in part, the same matter, and are not absolutely irreconcilable, and no purpose to repeal the earlier act is expressed or clearly indicated, the court will, if possible, give effect to both.” Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46 , 15 Sup. Ct. 532 , 39 L. Ed. 614 ; United States v. Lee Yen Tai, 185 U. S. 213 , 22 Sup. Ct. 629 , 46 L. Ed. 878 ; Franke v. Murray (C. C. A. 8) 248 Fed. 865 , 160 C. C. A. 623 , L. R. A. 1918E, 1015, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 98; United States v. Sacein Rouhana Farhat (D. C. S. D. Ohio, E. D.) 269 Fed. 33 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.