Nolte v. Hudson Nav. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
16 F.2d 182 · 1926
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 1997
5 federal appellate ·
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 Evanston v. Gunn · Thomas Ellicott v. William Pearl · District of Columbia v. Gallaher · Frederick Lowrey v. Territory of Hawaii · City of New York v. New York City Railway Co.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * True, there is no apt language to include the maintenance of a shed upon the land inside the bulkhead; but there is equally none to exclude it. ‘Emoluments’ ‘appurtenant’ to the wharf is indeed a vague phrase, and was used because it was; the exact extent of what was granted was not known, and was not meant to be set out in detail. * * * “However, we need not say that, if the words stood bare, as they did in 1898, we should feel obliged to construe them in this way. At least, when parties choose such equivocal language, they must be content with the interpretation which they put upon it immediately thereafter, and to which they continuously adhered for nearly 25 years. While the new pier and bulkhead were building, the company asserted its right under the contract to a new shed located relatively to the new bulkhead as the old shed was located relatively to the old bulkhead, and the city assented, not as the grant of a new right, but as something included within the old. “Nobody read any other meaning into the words until this claim was filed, and everybody concerned acted on the assumption that the first interpretation had been right. The canon of contemporaneous and subsequent construction of a contract applies, not only to individuals, but also to municipalities * * 16 F.2d at page 184 .”
1 later decision 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.