Frank Waskey v. Joseph Hammer’s Empirical Analysis
223 U.S. 85 · 1912
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 12 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably United States v. American Trucking Associations (1940), County of Oneida New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State New York (1985)
9 federal appellate · 12 district · 29 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
reviewedWaskey v. Hammer (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · United States v. Hartwell · National Bank v. Matthews · United States v. Germaine · United States v. Moore
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'void and confers no right upon the wrongdoer,'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“indirectly purchasing or becoming interested in the purchase of any of the public land”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The general rule of law is that an act •done in violation of a statutory prohibition is void and confers no right upon the wrongdoer; but this rule is subject to the qualification that when, upon a survey of the statute, its subject-matter and the mischief sought to be prevented, it appears that the legislature intended otherwise, effect must -be given to that intention, (authorities) Here we think the general rule applies. The acts described in § 452 [ 43 U.S.C.A. § 11 ] are expressly prohibited Under penalty of dismissal. There is in its language nothing indicating that its scope is to be confined to the exaction of that penalty (authority), or that acts done in violation of it are to be valid against all but the government. Nor is there anything in its subject-matter or in the mischief sought to be prevented which militates against the application of the general rule. On the contrary, it is reasonably inferable, from the language of the section and the situation with which it deals, that it is intended that violations of it shall be attended by the ordinary consequences of unlawful acts. We therefore are of opinion that the readjusted location was void.” And see Prosser v. Finn, 208 U.S. 67 , 28 S.Ct. 225 , 52 L.Ed. 392 to the same effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eager v. Belmore
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.