Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 U.S. 95 - Murphy v. Utter

Murphy v. Utter’s Empirical Analysis

186 U.S. 95 · 1902

Citation profile

118
cited by 118 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 9 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably Bird v. United States (1902), Great Northern Railway Company v. United States (1908)

40 federal appellate · 9 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 11 states

250190219101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ex parte McCardle · United States v. Tynen · In re Potts · Warner Valley Stock Company v. Smith · 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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““And it is a well-settled rule in the construction of statutes, often affirmed and applied by this court, that, ‘even where two acts are not in express terms repugnant, yet if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first, and embraces new provisions, plainly showing that it was intended as a substitute for the first act, it will operate as a repeal of that act’ ” — citing cases.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““As the corporation can only act through its agents, the courts will operate upon the agents through the corporation. When a copy of the writ which has been ordered is served upon the clerk of the Board, it will be served on the corporation, and be equivalent to a command that the persons who may be members of the Board shall do what is required. If the members fail to obey, those guilty of disobedience may, if necessary, be punished for the contempt. Although the command is in, form to the Board, it may be enforced against those through whom alone it can be obeyed. One of the objects in creating such corporations, capable of suing and being sued, and having perpetual succession, is that the very inconvenience which manifested itself in Boutwell’s case may be avoided. In this way the office can be reached and the officer compelled to perform its duties, no matter what changes are made in the agents by whom the officer acts. The Board is in effect the officer, and the members of the Board are but 'the agents who perform its duties. While the Board is proceeded against in its corporate capacity, the individual members are punished in their natural capacities for failure to do what the law requires of them as representatives of the corporation. . “We think, therefore, that the peremptory writ was properly directed to the Board in its corporate capacity. In this way the power of the writ is restrained until the thing is done which is commanded, and it may at all times be enforced”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Both acts are complete in themselves, and each is, upon its face, independent of the other. It is impossible to say that, if the territorial act were repealed, the act of Congress passed three years later would also fail in consequence thereof, because the latter is not only the later, but the paramount, act. They must either stand together as two independent pieces of legislation, or the general, and perhaps the sounder, rule stated in United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88 , 20 L. Ed. 153 , be applied, that where there are two acts on the same subject, and the later act embraces all the provisions of the first, and also new provisions, and impose different or additional penalties, the latter act operates, without any repealing clause, as a repeal of the first.””
    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.