Allen v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis
1892
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 1961 · most notably Buckley v. Chadwick (1955), 51 Cal. 2d 84 - MacFarlane v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1958)
4 federal appellate · 24 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 Gelpcke et al. v. The City of Dubuque · Douglass v. County of Pike · Louisiana v. Pilsbury · Railroad Company v. Manufacturing Company · De Wolf v. Johnson
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The courts can not make or repeal a law. ‘They can say what a law means; and if afterward they see that they have made a mistake,, they can correct their error by an overruling of a former decision, the consequence of which overruling is that the blunder is thenceforward deemed never to have been law.’ (Bishop, Const., § 569.) “It has been held here that, although it appears the parties have entered into a contract relying upon a previous decision of the supreme court, they would not be relieved from the obligations thereof because of a subsequent decision by the same court overruling the former one and declaring a different rule upon the same subject. (Kenyon v. Welty, 20 Cal. 637 , 81 Am. Dec. 137 .) There are some cases in which the supreme court of the United States has held that the construction given to a statute by the highest tribunal in the state, whether .sound or not, must be taken as correct, so far as contracts made under the act are concerned, and no subsequent decision altering the construction can impair their validity. The construction becomes a part of the statute—as much so as if it were an amendment made by the legislature. . . . These cases, however, all involved the question as to the validity of negotiable securities.” (Allen v. Allen, 95 Cal. 184, 199 , 30 Pac. 213, 216 , 16 L. R. A. 646.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Crigler v. Shepler
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.