Blair v. City of Chicago’s Empirical Analysis
201 U.S. 400 · 1906
Citation profile
125 federal appellate · 39 district · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 370 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2009 · most notably Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co. (1909), United States v. La Franca (1931)
125 federal appellate · 39 district · 69 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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 Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward · Sturges v. Crowninshield · Burgess v. Seligman · Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair County of Essex v. Ramsdell · City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co
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 370 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It may be that the very ambiguity of the act was the means of securing its.passage. Legislative grants of this character should be in such unequivocal form of expression that the legislative mind may be distinctly impressed with their eharaeteif.,£nd import, in order that the privileges may be intelligently granted or purposely withheld. It is a matter of common knowledge that grants of this character áre usually prepared by those interested in them, and submitted to the Legislature with a view to obtain from such bodies the most liberal grant of privileges which .they are willing to give. This is one among many reasons why they are to be strictly construed.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A statute which is amended is thereafter, and as to all acts subsequently done, to be ■construed as if the amendment had always been there, and the amendment itself so thoroughly becomes a part of the original statute, that it must be construed, in view of the original statute, as it stands after the amendments are introduced and the matters superseded by the amendments eliminated.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The act under consideration nowhere assumes to fix the; duration of the grant, nor excludes the conclusion that it is embraced in tlie ‘terms and conditions’ which are to be fixed by contract with the city. If the franchise to use the streets, without regard to municipal action, was fully conferred by the legislative act under consideration, then the company had only to take-possession of the streets, subject to regulations as to the running of the cars, etc., by tlie city council. On the contrary, under the terms of this act, the city, by withholding it’s consent, c-ould prevent the use of the streets by the corporations. No way is pointed out by which this consent could be compelled. against the will of the council. That body might, for reasons sufficient to itself, under the terms of this act, by withholding assent, determine that it: was undesirable to have the corporations in control of the use of the streets. * * * What', then, was conferred in the franchise granted by the state? It was the right to be a corporation for the period named, and to acquire from the city the right to use the streets upon contract terms and conditions to be agreed upon. The franchise conferred by the state is of no practical value until supplemented by the consent' and authority of the city council.””
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.