Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 U.S. 393 - Keefe v. Clark

Keefe v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

322 U.S. 393 · 1944

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1985), Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc. (1959)

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 26 state decisions

16019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Whitney v. People of State of California · Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge · Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy · Gilman v. The City of Sheboygan · John Fisher v. Mayor and Council of the City of New Orleans

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

  1. ““We do not find in the provision of the drain statute relied upon by appellants a clear and unequivocal purpose of Michigan to permit drain districts to bargain away the State’s power to sell tax-delinquent lands free of encumbrances. Long before the date when appellants’ bonds were issued, the Michigan Supreme Court had held that, ‘The general rule is that a sale and a conveyance (by the State) in due form for taxes extinguishes all prior liens, whether for taxes or otherwise. This rule is one of necessity, growing out of the imperative nature of the demand of the government for its revenues. ’ . . . The provision of the drain statute upon which appellants rest their case does not expressly purport to alter this ‘rule of necessity’. On its face it deals only with the levy of an additional assessment in the event that drain bonds are not paid in full at maturity, and does not assume to deal with the manner of selling tax-delinquent properties in drain districts or the kind of title that can be conveyed at such sales. ‘The language falls far short of subjecting lots which have been sold to pay tax or assessment liens to an additional assessment for the deficit. Such a construction would defeat the remedy of tax sales as a means of realizing the assessment lien.’ ” Also in the case at bar, as has heretofore been pointed out, the remedies of the bondholder have always been subject to statutes of limitation and there is nothing in the statute under which the bonds were issued tha”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Before we can find impairment of a contract we must find an obligation of the contract which has been impaired. Since the contract here relied upon is one between a political subdivision of a state and private individuals, settled principles of construction require that the obligation alleged to have been impaired be clearly and unequivocally expressed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'[t]he continued existence of a government would be of no great value, if by implications and presumptions, it was disarmed of the powers necessary to accomplish the ends of its creation.'”
    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.