United States v. Tynen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

141 federal appellate · 46 district · 122 state decisions

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

1. ““It is a familiar doctrine that repeals by implication are not favored. 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 the first act, it will act ¿s a repeal, of that act.” United States v. Tynen, 78 U. S. 92 , 20 L. Ed. 153 .”

   23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Henrietta Mining & Milling Co. v. Gardner · United States v. Fausto

2. ““By tbe repeal tbe legislative will is expressed that no iurtber proceedings be bad under tbe act repealed. In Norris v. Crocker [ 13 How. 429 , 14 L. Ed. 210 ] tbe court said that, as tbe plaintiff’s right to recover in that case depended entirely on the statute, its repeal deprived tbe court of jurisdiction over tbe subject. As said by Mr. Justice Taney, in another case, ‘The repeal of tbe law imposing tbe penalty is of itself a remission.’ In tbe case at bar, when tbe thirteenth section of tbe act of 1813 was repealed, there was no offense remaining for tbe court to punish in virtue of that section.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Chambers · Goublin v. United States

3. ““The first act makes the punishment for the offenses designated imprisonment or fine. It provides that the punishment shall be one or the other, and in so doing declares that it shall not be both. The second act allows both punishments in the discretion of the court; it thus permits what the first law prohibits. “Again, the act of 1813 provides that the imprisonment, when imposed as a punishment, shall not be less than three years, and may be extended to five. The act of 1870 allows the imprisonment to be fixed at one year, and from that period upwards to five years. In this also it permits what the first act forbids. “Again, the act of 1813 declares that the fine, when imposed, shall not be less than $500. The act of 1870 allows the fine to be as low as $300, thus authorizing what the .first act declares shall not be done. “When repugnant provisions like these exist between two acts, the latter act is held, according to all the authorities, to operate as a repeal of the first act, for the latter act expresses the will of the government as to the manner in which the offenses shall be subsequently treated.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Puhac