Posados v. Warner, Barnes & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
279 U.S. 340 · 1929
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 7 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2011 · most notably Utah Power & Light Co. v. Pfost (1932), Jerome H. Sheip Co. v. Amos (1930)
18 federal appellate · 7 district · 17 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.
Relationships
Relies on Eisner v. Macomber · Inhabitants of the Township of Montclair County of Essex v. Ramsdell · Louisiana v. Pilsbury · Tax Commissioner v. Putnam · Johnson v. Harrison
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose is to prevent the inclusion of incongruous and unrelated matters in the same measure and to guard against inadvertence, stealth and fraud in legislation. When bills conform to such requirements, their titles serve conveniently to apprise legislators and the public of the subjects under consideration. Courts strictly enforce such provisions in cases that fall within the reasons on which they rest. But, as freedom required or convenient for the effective exertion of the legislative power ought not unnecessarily or lightly to be interfered with, the courts disregard mere verbal inaccuracies, resolve doubts in favor of validity, and hold that, in order to warrant the setting aside of enactments for failure to comply with the rule, the violation must be substantial and plain. Louisiana ex rel. Southern Bank v. Pilsbury, 105 U.S. 278 , 289, 26 UEd. 1090; Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147 , 153, 2 S.Ct. 391 , 27 L.Ed. 431 ; Read v. Platts-mouth, 107 U.S. 568 , 578, 2 S.Ct. 208 , 27 L.Ed. 414 . City of South St. Paul v. Lamprecht Bros. Co., 8 Cir., 88 F. 449 , 451. Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W. 923 , 28 Am.St.Rep. 382 ; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations (7th Ed.) p. 202 et seq.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon the assumption that the rules of law to which this doctrine applies have previously been determined by a court having final jurisdiction of the questions involved. For this reason, where the decision of a tribunal is subject to review by one having superior authority over it for that purpose or the question determined may be passed upon by such tribunal in another case, the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply with full force until the same questions have been determined by the court of last resort. * *”
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.