Chappell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
160 U.S. 499 · 1896
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 42 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1997 · most notably Catlin v. United States (1945), United States v. Miller (1943)
85 federal appellate · 42 district · 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
Relies on Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe · Nishimura Ekiu v. United States · Kohl v. United States · Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kan Ry 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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That in every case in which the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other officer of the government has been, or hereafter shall be. authorized to procure real estate for the erection of. a public building or for other public uses he shall be, and hereby is, authorized to acquire the same for the United States by condemnation, under judicial process, whenever in his opinion it is necessary or advantageous to the government to do so, and the United States circuit or district courts of the district wherein such real estate is located, shall have jurisdiction of proceedings for such condemnation, and it shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States, upon every application of the Secretary of the Treasury, under this act, or such other officer, to cause proceedings to be commenced for condemnation within thirty days from the receipt of the application at the Department of Justice. “Sec. 2. The practice, pleadings, forms and modes of proceeding in causes arising under tlie provisions of this a<4. shall conform, as near as may be. to the practice, pleadings, forms, and proceedings existing at tlie time in like causes in the courts of record of the state within which such circuit or district courts are held, any rule of the court to the contrary notwithstanding.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Section 1. That the phrase ‘laws of Hawaii,’ as used in this act without qualifying words, shall mean the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Hawaii in force on the twelfth day of August, eighteen*hundred and ninety-eight, at the time of the transfer of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America. The Constitution and statute laws of the Republic of Hawaii then in force, set forth in a compilation made by Sidney M. Ballou under the authority of the Legislature, and published in two volumes, entitled ‘Civil Laws’ and ‘Penal Laws,’ respectively, and in the Session Laws of the Legislature for the session of eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, are referred to in this act as ‘Civil Laws,’ ‘Penal Laws,’ and ‘Session Laws.’ ” “Sec. 5. That the Constitution, and, except as herein otherwise provided, all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory as elsewhere in the United States: provided, that sections eighteen hundred and fifty and eighteen hundred and ninety of the Revised Statutes of the United States shall not apply to the territory of Hawaii. “Sec. 6. That the laws of Hawaii not inconsistent with the Constitution or laws of the United States or the provisions of this act, shall continue in force, subject to repeal or amendment by the Legislature of Hawaii or the Congress of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The only position, other than the denial of the constitutionality of the act of Congress, argued by the plaintiff in error in this court, was that by the statutes and decisions of Maryland the jury which returned the inquisition was hut a body of assessors of damages, in the nature of a special jury of inquest, or board of commissioners, and that he was entitled to have the whole case tried anew by an ordinary jury. In support of this position were cited the following cases, decided under different statutes of Maryland: Tide Water Canal Co. v. Archer, 9 Gill & J. [Md.] 479; Steuart v. Baltimore, 7 Md. 500 ; State v. Graves, 19 Md. 351 [ 81 Am. Dec. 639 ]. Bnt, however that may he under the statutes of the state," it is not ■ so under-the act of Congress.””
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.