Calhoun v. Massie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 federal appellate · 3 district · 54 state decisions

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

1. ““An appropriate exercise by a State of its police power is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, although it results in serious depreciation of property values; and the United States may, 'consistently with the Fifth Amendment, impose for a permitted purpose, restrictions upon property which produce like results. Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321 , 357; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 45 , 58; Hoke v. United States, 227 U. S. 308 , 323; Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146 . The sovereign right of the Government is not less because the property affected happens to be a contract. Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Mottley, 219 U. S. 467 , 484; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Corporation, 248 U. S. 372 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States

2. ““That no part of the amount of any item appropriated in this bill in excess of twenty percentum thereof shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or agents, attorney or attorneys on account of services rendered or advances made in connection with said claim. “It shall be unlawful for any agent or agents, attorney or attorneys to exact, collect, withhold or receive any sum which in the aggregate exceeds twenty percentum of the amount of any item appropriated in this bill on account of services rendered or advances made in connection with said claim, any contract to the contrary notwithstanding. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Albert v. Munter

3. “... (a) the payment of federal funds cannot be made without legislation consenting to suit against the United States or authorizing the payment of federal money to the claimants, (b) Congress has the authority to mold and limit its consent to suit and its award of monies, and (e) in making attorney or client contracts the parties must be aware, particularly in view of much past practice (now well over a century old), that Congress could be “unwilling to enact any legislation without assuring itself that the benefits thereof would not inure largely to others than those named in the act.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 85 Fed. Cl. 404 - Zaid v. United States