Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 U.S. 514 - Jacksonville Ry Nav Co v. Hooper

Jacksonville Ry Nav Co v. Hooper’s Empirical Analysis

160 U.S. 514 · 1896

Citation profile

226
cited by 226 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 22 district · 98 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 226 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2012 · most notably Sun Printing Publishing Association v. William L Moore (1902), Union Pac Ry Co v. Chicago R I P Ry Co Union Pac Ry Co (1896)

70 federal appellate · 22 district · 98 state decisions — followed in 29 states

4301896190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Thomas v. Railroad Co. · The President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. Dandridge · Central Transp Co v. Pullman's Palace Car 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 226 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““But where the subject-matter of the contract is not foreign to the purposes for which the corporation is created, a contract embracing ‘whatever may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those things which the Legislature has authorized, ought not, unless expressly prohibited to be held by' judicial construction to be ultra vires.’ ””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We know of no rule or principle by which an act creating a corporation for certain specific objects or to carry on a particular trade or business is to be strictly construed as prohibitory of all other dealings or transactions not coming within the exact scope of those designated. Undoubtedly, the main business of a corporation is to be confined to that class of operations which properly appertain to the general'purposes for which its charter was granted. But it may also enter into contracts and engage in transactions which are incidental or auxiliary to its main business, or which may become necessary, expedient, or profitable in the care and management of the property which it is authorized to hold under the act by which it is created.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is the province of the courts to enforce contracts, not to make or modify them. When there is neither fraud, accident, nor mistake, the exercise of dispensing power is not a judicial function.””
    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.