Baltimore & Susquehanna Railroad v. Nesbit’s Empirical Analysis
51 U.S. 395 · 1850
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1988 · most notably Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital (1988), United States v. Lovett (1946)
8 federal appellate · 40 state decisions — followed in 20 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.
Relationships
Relies on Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge · David Wilkinson v. Thomas Leland · John Satterlee v. Elizabeth Matthewson · Jane Watson v. John Mercer · Edward Livingston v. John Moore
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ That there exists a general power in the state governments to enact retrospective or retroactive laws, is a point too well settled to admit of question at this day. The only limit upon this power in the States by the Federal Constitution, and therefore the only source of cognizance or control with respect to that power existing in this court, is the provision that these retrospective laws shall not be such as are technically ex post faato, or such as impair the obligation of contracts. Thus, in the case of Watson et al. v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 110 , the court say: c It is clear that this court has no right to pronounce an act of the state legislature void, as contrary to the Constitution of the United States, from the mere fact that it divests antecedent vested rights of property. The Constitution of the. United States does not prohibit the States from passing retrospective laws generally, but only ex post facto laws. Now, it has been solemnly settled by this court that the phrase ex post facto is not applicable to civil laws, but to penal and criminal laws.’ For this position is cited the case of Calder v. Bull, already mentioned; of Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 138 ; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 266 , and Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 380 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. League v. Texas““If it were necessary to sustain by precedent the authority or practice of the state legislature in awarding a new trial, or in ordering a proceeding in the nature of an appeal, after litigation actually commenced, or even after judgment, and as to which provision for new trial or appeal had not been previously made, a very striking example from this court might be adduced in the case of Calder and Wife v. Bull and Wife, decided as long since as 1798, and reported in the 3rd of Dallas, p. 386.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Merten
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.