Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 U.S. 95 - United States v. Goldenberg

United States v. Goldenberg’s Empirical Analysis

168 U.S. 95 · 1897

Citation profile

472
cited by 472 later decisions
26
cited 26 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

66 federal appellate · 43 district · 146 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 472 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Connecticut National Bank v. Germain (1992), Jones v. Bock (2007)

66 federal appellate · 43 district · 146 state decisions — followed in 20 states

11601897190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · United States v. Kirby · Decatur v. Paulding · United States International Contracting Co v. Lamont

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

  1. ““The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar. The courts have no function of legislation, and simply seek to ascertain the will of the legislator. It is true there are cases in which the letter of the statute is not deemed controlling, but the cases are few and exceptional, and only arise when there are cogent reasons for believing that the letter does not fully and accurately disclose the intent. No mere omission, no mere failure to provide for contingencies, which it may seem wise to have specifically provided for, justify any judicial addition to the language of the statute.””
    11 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.