Warner v. City of New Orleans’s Empirical Analysis
167 U.S. 467 · 1897
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1953 · most notably United States v. Mayer (1914), Blackstone v. Miller (1903)
16 federal appellate · 6 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Peake v. City of New Orleans, United States · Cross v. Evans
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That one who purchases property, contracting to pay for it out of a particular fund, and issues warrants therefor payable out of that fund — a fund yet partially to be created and created by the performance by him of a statutory duty- — cannot deliberately abandon that duty, take active steps to prevent the further creation of the fund, and then, there being nothing in the fund, plead, in defense to a liability on the warrants drawn on that fund that it had prior to the purchase paid off obligations thereto, fore created against the fund. Whatever equity may do in setting off against all warrants drawn before this purchase from the canal company and its transferee the bonds issued by the city, * * * it by no means follows that the city can draw new warrants on the fund in payment for property which it voluntarily purchases, and then abandon the work by which alone file fund could be made good, resort to means within its power to prevent any payments of assessments into that fund, and thus, after violating its contract promise not to obstruct or impede, but on the contrary to facilitate by all lawful means, the collection of the assessments, plead its prior issue of bonds as a reason for evading any liability upon the warrants. One who purchases properly and pays for it in warrants drawn upon a particular fund, the creation of which depends largely on his own action, is under an implied obligation to do whatever is reasonable and fair to make that fund good. Ho cannot certain”
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.