Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 NY 509 - Bertholf v. . O'Reilly

Bertholf v. . O'Reilly’s Empirical Analysis

1878

Citation profile

133
cited by 133 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
26
states following
March 1981
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 113 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 133 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1981 · most notably Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1912), Northern Securities Company v. United States (1904)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 113 state decisions — followed in 26 states

310187818801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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

  1. ““And the act of 1873 is not invalid because it creates a right of action and imposes a liability not known to the common law. There is no such limit to legislative power. The legislature may alter or repeal the common law. It may create new offenses, enlarge the scope of civil remedies, and fasten responsibility for injuries upon persons against whom the common law gives no remedy. We do not mean that the legislature may impose upon one man liability for an injury suffered by another, with which he had no connection. But it may change the rule of the common law, which looks only to the proximate cause of the mischief, in attaching legal responsibility, and allow a recovery to be had against those whose acts contributed, although remotely, to produce it. . . . “The liability imposed upon the landlord for the acts of the tenant is not a new principle in legislation. His liability only arises when he has consented that the premises may be used as a place for the sale of liquors. He selects the tenant, and he may, without violating any constitutional provision, be made responsible for the tenant’s acts, connected with the use of the leased property.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The main guaranty of private rights against unjust legislation is found in that memorable clause in the bill of rights, that no person shall `be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process'; (Const., Art. 1, sec. 6). This guaranty is not construed in any narrow or technical sense. The right to life may be invaded, without its destruction. One may be deprived of his liberty in a constitutional sense without putting his person in confinement. Property may be taken without manual interference therewith or its physical destruction. The right to life includes the right of the individual to his body in its completeness and without dismemberment; the right to liberty, the right to exercise his faculties and to follow a lawful avocation for the support of life; the right of property, the right to acquire power and enjoy it in any way consistent with the equal rights of others and the just exactions and demands of the State.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““A party cannot object upon constitutional grounds to a liability which he has voluntarily assumed, in consideration of a benefit conferred; and ■one may renounce even a constitutional provision made for his own benefit.””
    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.