Wrightman v. Boone County’s Empirical Analysis
88 F. 435 · 1898
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1958 · most notably McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1914), Armour Packing Co. v. United States (1907)
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
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 Vance v. Vance · M'Iver v. Ragan · President of the Bank of Alabama v. Dalton · Twenty per Cent. Cases · Madden v. Lancaster County
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““By the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517 ( 26 Stat. 826 ), creating the circuit courts of appeals, jurisdiction is conferred on this court to review by direct appeal any final judgment rendered by the circuit court ‘in any case in which the constitution or law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the constitution of the United States.’ There can be no doubt that the case at bar comes within this provision. The complainants in tlu'ii* I>m in express terms predicated tlieir right to the relief sought upon llu> averment that certain ordinances adopted by the municipal authorities of the city of Austin, and an act of the legislature of the state of Texas referred to in the bill, impaired the obligations of the contract which the bill alleged had been entered into with the complainants by the city of Austin, and that both the law of the state of Texas and the city ordinances were in contravention of the constitution of the United States. No language could more plainly bring a case within the letter of a statute than do these allegations of the bill bring this case within the law of 1891.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A careful examination of these sections of the act of congress in Hastings v. Ames, 32 U. S. App. 485, 15 C. C. A. 628 , 68 Fed. 726 , and in Pauley Jail Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Crawford Co., 28 C. C. A. 579 , 84 Fed. 942 , led us to the conclusion that, if it is claimed that a law of a state is void because it contravenes the constitution of the United States, a circuit court of appeals has no jurisdiction of the ease, although it may involve the consideration of many other questions.””
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.