Thacker Coal Co. v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis
1906
Citation profile
1 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014
1 district · 13 state decisions
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 Walker v. Cronin · Chemical Nat Bank of Chicago v. Hartford Deposit Co · Transportation Co. v. Standard Oil Co. · Frank & Dugan v. Herold · Twomey v. Linnehan
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If one wantonly and maliciously, whether for his own benefit or not, induce a person to violate his contract with a third person, to the injury of that .third person, it is actionable.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The defendants rely on Code 1899, p. 1053, section 14 reading as follows: ‘Nor shall any person or persons or combination of persons by force, threats, menace or intimidation o-f any kind, prevent or attempt to prevent from working in or about any mine, any person or persons who have the lawful right to work in or about the same, and who desire ^o to work; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prevent any two or more persons from associating themselves together under the name of Knights of Labor, or any other name they may desire, for any lawful purpose, or from using moral suasion or lawful argument, to induce any one not to work on and about any mine.’ This statute is a penal, criminal statute; for it makes the acts in it specified unlawful, an,d by section 17 imposes a punishment. This is a criminal act. It does not pretend to create rights between individuals. It prohibits certain acts, and the proviso simply curtails the scope of the enactment by saying that the enacting clause shall not be construed to impair any right already existing, if existing, to join the organizations therein specified or use moral suasion. It is only a curb upon the enactment. It does not affirmatively grant, create, or originate those rights. It does not make them lawful, if before unlawful. And could the Legislature authorize any person to violate a contract?””
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.