Williams v. Bruffy’s Empirical Analysis
96 U.S. 176 · 1877
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. (1918)
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 17 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 Paul v. Virginia · Ward v. Maryland · Horn v. Lockhart · The Brig Amy Warwick the Schooner Crenshaw the Barque Hiawatha the Schooner Brilliante · The Santissima Trinidad
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the same general form of government, the same general law for the administration of justice and the protection of private rights, which had existed in the States prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. As far as the acts of the States did not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the national authority, or the just rights of the citizens, under the Constitution, they are in general to be treated as valid and binding.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ketchum v. Buckley · Keith v. Clark“the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The pleas aver that a confederation was formed by Virginia and other States, called the Confederate States of America, and that under a law of this confederation, enforced in Virginia, the. debt due to the plaintiffs was sequestrated. Now, the Constitution of the United States prohibits any treaty, alliance, or confederation by one State with another. The organization whose enactment is pleaded cannot therefore be regarded in this court as having any legal existence. It follows that whatever efficacy the enactment possessed in Virginia must be attributed to the sanction given to it by that State. Any enactment, from whatever source originating, to which a State gives the force of law, is a statute of the State, within the meaning of the clause cited relating to the jurisdiction of this court. . . . .By the only authority which can be recognized as having any legal existence, that is, the State of Virginia, this act of the unauthorized confederation was enforced as a law of the commonwealth. Its validity was drawn in question on the ground that it was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and the decision of the court below was in favor of its validity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ford v. Surget
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.