Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 CAL 634 - Tynan v. Walker

Tynan v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1868

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
December 1985
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1985 · most notably Reading Co. v. Koons (1926), 26 Cal. 2d 173 - Grimm v. Grimm (1945)

5 federal appellate · 48 state decisions — followed in 12 states

1101868187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 M'Iver v. Ragan · Demarest v. Wynkoop · The People v. . McCumber · Gay v. Winter · Wenman v. Mohawk Insurance

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

  1. “—“A most dangerous and pernicious mode of reasoning, which amounts to judicial legislation, and overturns the maxim that courts are authorized to declare the law only, arid not to make it. If they may add at all to the exceptions provided for in the statutes, under the pretense that the,case before them is of equal equity with those given in the statutes, who is to fix the limit to their interpolation or establish the line between legislative and judicial function? If they may add one to the list of excepted cases, by a parity of reasoning they may add another, and so on until the entire body of the statute has become emasculated and the will of the judiciary substituted for that of the legislature. * * * It is an universal principle of construction that courts must find the intent of the -legislature in the statute itself. Unless some ground can be found in the statute for restraining or enlarging the meaning of its general words, they must receive a general construction, and the courts cannot arbitrarily subtract from or add thereto.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.