Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 U.S. 315 - Hijo v. United States

Hijo v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

194 U.S. 315 · 1904

Citation profile

212
cited by 212 later decisions
36
cited 36 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 38 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 212 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States (1967), Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co. (1926)

48 federal appellate · 38 district · 18 state decisions

390190419101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Whitney v. Robertson · United States v. Great Falls Manuf'G Co · Cherokee Tobacco · Royal Insurance Company v. Ruperto Martin

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

  1. “upon any contract, express or implied and a remedy for claims sounding in tort is expressly denied. Bigby v. United States, 188 U. S. 400 ; Hijo v. United States, 194 U. S. 315 , 323. As stated in United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445 , 462, 465: “The law will imply a promise to make the required compensation, where property to which the government asserts no title, is taken, pursuant to an act of Congress, as private property to be applied for public uses”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The government insists that the requirement in that act, that the petition shall be filed "in the district where the plaintiff resides’ precludes a suit against the United States by any person, natural or corporate, residing out of the country. We express no opinion upon that question, as there are other grounds upon which we may satisfactorily rest our decision.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “for the bringing of suits against the government of the United States,”
    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.