Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 U.S. 342 - Thomas Wood Junior v. United States

Thomas Wood Junior v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

41 U.S. 342 · 1842

Citation profile

558
cited by 558 later decisions
67
cited 67 times by the Supreme Court
32
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

249 federal appellate · 49 district · 92 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 558 later decisions (67 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Carroll v. United States (1925), Connecticut National Bank v. Germain (1992)

249 federal appellate · 49 district · 92 state decisions — followed in 32 states

650184218501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Wood

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

  1. ““That It has not been expressly or by direct terms repealed is admitted,; and the question resolves itself into the more narrow inquiry whether it has been repealed by necessary implication. We say by. necessary implication; for it is not sufficient to establish that subsequent laws cover some, dr. even all, of the cases provided for by it; for they may be merely affirmative, or cumulative, or auxiliary. But there must be a positive repugnancy between the provisions of the new law and those of the old; and even then the old law is repealed by implication only pro tanto, to the extent of the repugnancy.””
    20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * it has always been deemed allowable, as well in criminal as in civil cases, to introduce evidence of other acts and doings of the party, of a kindred character, in order to illustrate or establish his intent or motive in the particular act directly in judgment”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “. fraud, being essentially a matter of motive and intention, is often deducible only from a great variety of circumstances, no one of which is absolutely decisive; but all combined together may become almost irresistible as to the true nature and character of the transaction in controversy . . it is a general principle of law, that whenever a fraudulent intention is to be established, collateral facts tending to show such intention are admissible proof.”
    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.