Davis v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis
257 U.S. 478 · 1922
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 36 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 225 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Hagans v. Lavine (1974)
41 federal appellate · 36 district · 56 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Siler v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Truax v. Corrigan · Greene v. Louisville & Interurban Railroad · Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Green Garrett · Wallace v. Hines
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 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reasoning on which the decisions proceed is illustrated in . State ex rel. McNeal v. Dombaugh, 20 Ohio St. 167 , 174. In dealing with a contention that a statute containing an unconstitutional proviso should be construed as if the remainder stood alone, the court there said: ‘This would be to mutilate the section, and garble its meaning. The legislative intention must not be confounded with their power to carry that intention into effect. To refuse to give force and vitality to a provision of the law is one thing, and to refuse to read it is a very different thing. It is by a mere figure of speech that we say an unconstitutional provision of a statute is stricken out. For all the purposes of construction it is to be regarded as part of the act. The meaning of the legislature must be gathered from all they have said, as well from that which is ineffective for want of power as from that which is authorized by law.’ [See 129 N. J. L. at 243]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... if the bill presented a substantial controversy under the Constitution of the United ¡States, and the requisite .amount was involved, the jurisdiction éxtended to the determination of all questions, including, questions of state law, and irrespective of the disposition made of the federal questions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hurn v. Oursler“does not make the provision any less a key to the intention of the Legislature or enable the [State] to subject [those individuals that would have been exempted by the provision] to other provisions form the act as the whole shows the Legislature intended to except them.”
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.