Hugh Wallace v. Mrs Ella Adams’s Empirical Analysis
204 U.S. 415 · 1907
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 16 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982), Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co. (1908)
41 federal appellate · 16 district · 27 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
reviewedWallace v. Adams (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · United States v. Kagama · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · Stephens v. Cherokee Nation
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The contention is that the act of July 1, 1808, in extending the remedy by appeal to this court, was invalid, because retrospective, an invasion of ihe judicial domain, and destructive of vested rights. By its terms the act was to opéralo retrospectively, and as to that it may be observed, that, while the general rule is that statutes should be so construed as to give them only prospective operation, yet where' the language employed expresses a contrary intention in unequivocal terms, the mere fact Unit the legislation is retroactive does not necessarily render it void. And while it is undoubtedly true that Legislatures cannot set aside Uto judgments of courts, compel Idem to grant now trials, order the discharge of offenders, or direct what steps shall be ialien in the progress of a judicial inquiry, tito grant of a new remedy by nay of review has been often sustained, under particular circumstances [citing cases!. “The United States Court in the Indian Territory is a legislative court, and was authorized to exercise jurisdiction in these citizenship cases as a part of tlie machinery devised by Congress in the discharge of its duties in respect of there Indian tribes; and assuming that Congress possesses plenary power of legislation in regard to them, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, it follows that the validity of remedial legislation of this sort cannot be questioned, unless in violation of some prohibition of that instrument. In its enactment Congre”
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.