Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 U.S. 652 - Henderson's Tobacco

Henderson's Tobacco’s Empirical Analysis

78 U.S. 652 · 1870

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
31
cited 31 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 7 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1989 · most notably Jett v. Dallas Independent School District (1989), Watt v. Alaska (1981)

40 federal appellate · 7 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 12 states

200187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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

  1. ““ ‘Statutes are indeed sometimes held to be repealed by subsequent enactments, though the latter contain no repealing clauses. This is always the rule when the provisions of the latter •acts are repugnant to those of the former, so far as they are repugnant.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “•‘When there are two acts on the same subject, the rule is to give effect to both, if possible. But, if the two are repugnant in any of their provisions, the latter act, without any repealing clause, operates to the extent of the repugnancy as a repeal of the first; and even where two acts are not, in express terms, repugnant, yet, if the latter act covers the whole subject of the first, and embraces new provisions, plainly showing that it was intended as a substitute for ilie first act, it will operate as a repeal of that act.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to leave in force some portions of former acts relative to the same subject-matter,”
    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.