Gardner v. The Collector’s Empirical Analysis
73 U.S. 499 · 1867
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 12 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Mills v. Green (1895)
9 federal appellate · 12 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 26 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 Reichart v. Felps · De Bow v. People
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whenever a question arises in a court of law, either of the existence of a statute, of the time when a statute took effect, or of the precise terms of a statute, the judges, who are called upon to decide it, have a right to resort to any sources of information which, in its nature, is capable of conveying to the judicial mind a clear and satisfactory answer to such question, always seeking first for that which in its nature is most appropriate, unless the positive law has enacted a different rule.” Gardner v. The Collector, 6 Wall. 499 , 511, 18 L. Ed. 890 ; South Ottawa v. Perkins, supra. “In the ascertainment of any facts of which they are bound to take judicial notice, as in the decision of matters of law which it is their office to know, the judges may refresh their memory and inform their conscience from such sources as they deem most trustworthy.” Jones v. United States, supra.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Duncan · Field v. Clark“Every bill which shall have passed the Council and the House of Representatives of said territory shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the Governor of the territory. If he approves he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it with his objections to the House in which it originated, which shall enter the objections at large upon its journal and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House it shall become a law. But in all such cases the vote of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, to be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Governor within five days (Sunday excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the assembly, by adjournment, prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is one of which the court takes judicial notice without proof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harwood v. Wentworth
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.