Goltra v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis
271 U.S. 536 · 1926
Citation profile
143 federal appellate · 30 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 284 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1992 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949)
143 federal appellate · 30 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 11 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Smyth v. Ames · United States v. Lee · Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson
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 284 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Coming now to the merits, however, we think that the District Court erred in granting the temporary injunction, because, on the facts disclosed, the lease was finally terminated by the decision of the Secretary of War and the Chief of Engineers, communicated- to Goltra under § 8 of the contract. * * * It appears from the evidence that during the season from July 15, 1922, when Goltra got the boats, they were not in use but were tied up except for the transportation of two comparatively small cargoes. The bill itself admits that Goltra did not fulfill his covenant to operate as a common carrier. He says he was prevented from doing so by the S ecretaryVrefusal to give him the rates he wished. The contract expressly forbade rates exceeding the prevailing rail rates and forbade rates less than the rail rates except by consent of the Secretary. “The stipulation that the lessor, the Chief of Engineers, could terminate the lease if in his judgment Goltra was not complying with the obligations of the contract, did not require for its exercise that the Chief of Engineers, or the Secretary, should hold a court and have a hearing to determine the question of compliance. Goltra was given a notice March 4th, of the termination. He answered March 8th, but he tendered no facts upon which either the Secretary or the Chief of Engineers could base any different conclusion from that already reached from the failure of Goltra to fulfill his obligations. Both the Secretary and the Chief of Engin”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the conduct of the defendant constitutes an unwarrantable interference with property of the complainant, its resort to equity for protection is not to be defeated upon the ground that the suit is one against the United States. The exemption of the United States from suit does not protect its officers from personal liability to persons whose rights of property they have wrongfully invaded. * * * And in case of an injury threatened by his illegal action, the officer cannot claim immunity from injunction process. * * * 25”
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.