Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 U.S. 524 - Timothy Fanning v. Charles Gregoire and Charles Bogg

Timothy Fanning v. Charles Gregoire and Charles Bogg’s Empirical Analysis

57 U.S. 524 · 1853

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Cleveland v. United States (2000), Gloucester Ferry Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1885)

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

14018531860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Fletcher v. Peck · The President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. Dandridge · Capron v. Van Noorden

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

  1. ““The prohibition on the court and the board of county commissioners to grant a license for another ferry, it is urged, would seem to show an intent to make the grant exclusive. And that the reason for this might he found in the alleged fact, that when the ferry was first established, a considerable expenditure was required, and little or no profit was realized for some years. But all the judges present except one held that the grant was not intended to he exclusive. In their opinion this view is sustained by the consideration that, although the county court and county commissioners were prohibited from granting another license at Dubuque, yet this prohibition did not apply to the legislature; and as it had the power to authorize another ferry, the general authority to the council to ‘license and establish ferries across the Mississippi river at the city,’ enabled the corporation, in the exercise of its discretion, to grant a license, as the legislature might have done. “This power was clearly given to the city, and it may he exercised, unless the grant of Fanning be exclusive. “The hoard of commissioners has been established, and the legislature has substituted in its place, for the purpose of licensing ferries at Dubuque, the city council, and it is contended that this change of the power ought not to affect the rights of the plaintiff. The restriction on the commissioners of the county does not apply, in terms, to the city council; and the court think it cannot be made to a”
    1 later decision 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.