Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 U.S. 427 - United States v. Realty Co.

United States v. Realty Co.’s Empirical Analysis

163 U.S. 427 · 1896

Citation profile

281
cited by 281 later decisions
48
cited 48 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
October 1993
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 8 district · 89 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 281 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1993 · most notably Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923), Eisner v. Macomber (1920)

54 federal appellate · 8 district · 89 state decisions — followed in 29 states

63018961900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Field v. Clark · Williams v. Heard · Town of Guilford v. . the Supervisors of Chenango County · United States v. Weld

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 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Payments to individuals, not of right or of a merely legal claim, but payments in the nature of a gratuity, yet having some feature of moral obligation to support them, have been made by the government by virtue of acts of Congress, appropriating the' public money, ever since its foundation. Some of the acts were based upon considerations of pure charity.. A long list of acts directing payments of the above general character is appended to the brief of one of the counsel for the defendants in error. The acts are referred to. not for the purpose of asserting their validity in all cases, but as evidence of what has been the practice of Congress since the adoption of the Constitution.””
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““* * * But in such a case as this, knowledge of the invalidity of the law in advance of any authoritative declaration to that effect will not be imputed to those who are acting under its provisions, and receiving the benefits provided by its terms. These parties cannot be held bound, upon the question of equitable or moral consideration, to know what no one else actually knew, and what no one could know prior to the determination, by some judicial tribunal, that the law was unconstitutional. Although it should finally turn out that the law is invalid, and is so pronounced, yet during all the time of its operation, as has been stated, all the officers of the government united in treating it as a valid act. No court had determined to the contrary. It was a question at least admitting of argument. * * * .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In regard to the question whether the facts existing in any given case bring it within the description of that class of claims which Congress can and ought to recognize as founded upon equitable and moral considerations and grounded upon principles of right and justice, we think that, generally, such question must, in its nature, be one for Congress to decide for itself. Its decision recognizing such a claim and appropriating money for its payment, can rarely, if ever, be the subject of review by the judicial branch of the government. * * *”
    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.