Continental Casualty Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
314 U.S. 527 · 1942
Citation profile
92 federal appellate · 6 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 207 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Collett Kitpatrick v. Texas and Pacific Railway Co (1949), Andrus v. Glover Construction Co. (1980)
92 federal appellate · 6 district · 22 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 601
Relies on Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company · Ford v. United States · Taylor v. Taintor · United States v. Mack · Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulzberger
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 207 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Generally speaking a 'legislative affirmative decription' implies denial of the non-described powers.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ T. Is Section 1020 of the Revised Statutes ( 18 U.S.C.A. § 601 ) the exclusive source of the power of the District Court of the United States at any time to remit the forfeiture of the penalty of a recognizance taken in a criminal cause? “ ‘2. Is the word “party” appearing in the phrase “willful default of the party” in Section 1020 of the Revised Statute ( 18 U.S.C.A. § 601 ), intended to describe (a) the person who makes application to the court for the remission of the forfeiture of the penalty, whether that person is the principal or the surety in the recognizance, or (b) only the principal in the recognizance ? “ ‘3. If the answer to Question 1 is “No” does the District Court of the United States have common law power to remit the forfeiture of the penalty of a recognizance taken in a criminal cause, where the default of the principal in the recognizance was willful? “‘4. If Question 3 is answered and the answer thereto is “Yes” is the common law power to remit the forfeiture limited to exercise upon an application made within the term of court at which the order of forfeiture was entered ? ’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A bail charged with custody of a defendant, Taylor v. Taintor [ 83 U.S. 366 ] 16 Wall. 366, 371 , 21 L.Ed. 287 , may exercise to the substantial benefit of criminal administration a high degree of care to prevent default, if he knows the later fortuitous apprehension of the principal will not relieve him of the forfeit.”
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.