Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 U.S. 179 - Twenty per Cent. Cases

Twenty per Cent. Cases’s Empirical Analysis

87 U.S. 179 · 1873

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 1994
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1994 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno (1990)

18 federal appellate · 10 district · 8 state decisions

1601873188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 United States v. Heth

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

  1. ““Courts of Justice agree that no statute, however positive in its terms, is to be construed as designed to interfere with existing contracts, rights of action, or with vested rights, unless the intention that it shall so operate is expressly declared or is to be necessarily implied, and jiursuaut to that rule courts will apply new statutes only to future cases, unless there is something in the nature of the case or in the language of the new provision which shows that they wore intended to have a retroactive operation. Even though the words of a statute are broad enough in their literal extent to .comprehend existing cases, they must yet be construed as applicable only to cases that may hereafter arise, unless the language employed expresses a contrary intention in unequivocal terms.””
    4 later decisions 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.