Rodgers v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
332 U.S. 371 · 1947
Citation profile
450 federal appellate · 51 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 796 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably United States v. Texas (1993), City of Milwaukee v. Cement Division, National Gypsum Co. (1995)
450 federal appellate · 51 district · 52 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
reviewedRodgers v. United States (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 7 U.S.C. § 1281 (Agricultural Act of 1948) · 7 U.S.C. § 1302 · 7 U.S.C. § 1348
Relies on Helvering v. Mitchell · Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize · Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States · Helvering v. Mitchell
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 796 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he failure to mention interest in statutes which create obligations has not been interpreted by this Court as manifesting an unequivocal congressional purpose that the obligation shall not bear interest.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] persuasive consideration in determining whether such obligations shall bear interest is the relative equities between the beneficiaries of the obligation and those upon whom it has been imposed. And this Court has generally weighed these relative equities in accordance with the historic judicial principle that one for whose financial advantage an obligation was assumed or imposed, and who has suffered actual money damages by another’s breach of that obligation, should be fairly compensated for the loss thereby sustained.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he contention is hardly supportable that the Federal Government suffers money damages or loss in the common law sense, to be compensated for by interest, when one convicted of a crime fails promptly to pay a money fíne assessed against him. The underlying theory of that penalty is that it is a punishment or deterrent and not a revenue-raising device; unlike a tax, it does not rest on the basic necessity of the Government to collect a carefully estimated sum of money by a particular date in order to meet its anticipated expenditures.”
3 later decisions 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.