Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 94 U.S. 645 - Boyd v. Alabama

Boyd v. Alabama’s Empirical Analysis

94 U.S. 645 · 1876

Citation profile

132
cited by 132 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
October 2021
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 6 district · 69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 132 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922), City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co (1898)

5 federal appellate · 6 district · 69 state decisions — followed in 21 states

2301876188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Metropolitan Board of Excise v. . Barrie · Moore v. State

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

  1. ““It is true that in a former case against the same defendant upon an indictment of a similar kind, for a previous offense of setting up and carrying on a lottery, the Supreme Court of the state held that the statute in Question constituted a contract, and that the repealing act was for that reason void. But in that ease the only subject before the court was the meaning of the statute — -whether its provisions in their terms amounted to a contract which a subsequent enactment could not impair. The constitutionality of the act was not drawn in question. That was not denied. Courts seldom undertake in any case to pass upon the validity of legislation where the question is not made by the parties. Their habit is to meet questions of that kind when they are raised, but not to anticipate them. Until then they will construe the acts presented for consideration, define their meaning, and enforce their provisions. The facts that acts may in this way have been often before the court is never deemed a reason for not subsequently considering their validity when that question is presented. Previous adjudications upon other points do not operate as an estoppel against the parties in new cases, nor conclude the court upon the constitutionality of the act, because that point might have been raised and determined in the first instance.””
    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.