Wright v. Forrestal’s Empirical Analysis
1886
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 1963 · most notably Griswold v. County of Ramsey (1954), City of Wauwatosa v. Milwaukee County (1963)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 Harrington v. Smith · Scanlan v. Childs · Nichols v. Halliday · McCabe v. Sumner · Kaehler v. Dobberpuhl
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The construction given to a statute by the body of men or officers who are directed to act upon it is always entitled to weight, and their construction should not be overridden by the courts, unless it be contrary to the clearly expressed meaning of the law.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Certainly the record does show that quite a large number of the lots were not charged with benefits to an amount equal to the estimated cost of the work in front of the same, nor anything near that sum. Any mistakes which the board may have made in charging lots with a greater sum as benefits than it might be made to appear they would receive from the construction of the street would furnish no ground of relief so long as such charge was not made fraudulently and for the purpose of making the owners pay more than their just proportion of the costs of such improvement. Mistakes of judgment or opinion in this respect can only be corrected by appearing before the board at the proper time, and having them corrected by an appeal to the board or to the common council, as provided by the charter. After the time for reviewing the assessment has passed, the legality or justice of the award of benefits can only be impeached by showing that the award was not made upon the proper basis, or that it was fraudulently made. Mere mistake of judgment cannot avail to vitiate the proceedings.””
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.