Hamilton Murray Use v. John a Gibson’s Empirical Analysis
56 U.S. 421 · 1853
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990)
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 22 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.
Relationships
Relies on Elmendorf v. Taylor
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]s a general rule for the interpretation of statutes, it may be laid down, that they never should be allowed a retroactive operation where this is not required by express command or by necessary and unavoidable implication. Without such command or implication they speak and operate on the future only.”
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.