Murray v. Charleston’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 6 district · 82 state decisions

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

1. “[a] promise . . . with a reserved right to deny or change the effect of the promise, is an absurdity.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey · In Re Assessment of First Nat. Bank of Chickasha

2. ““But neither the charter itself, nor any subsequent acts of legislation, directly or expressly interfered with any debts due by the city, or gave to the city any power over them. They simply gave limited legislative power to the city council. It was not until the ordinances were passed under the supposed authority of the legislative act that their provisions became the law of the state. It was only when the- ordinances assessed a tax upon the city debt, and required a part of it to be withheld from the creditors, that it became the law of the state that such a withholding could be made. The validity of the authority given by the state, as well as the validity, of the ordinances themselves, was necessarily before the court of common pleas when this case was tried; and no judgment could have been given for the defendants without determining that the ordinances were laws of the state, not impairing the obligation of the contracts made by the city with the plaintiff. * * * It is plain, therefore, that both in the common pleas and in the Supreme Court of the state a federal question was presented by the pleadings and was decided — decided in favor of the state legislation, and against a right the plaintiff claims he has under the Constitution of the United States. The city ordinances, were in question on the ground of their repugnancy to the inhibition upon the states to make any law impairing the obligation of contracts ; and the decision was in favor of their validity. Nothing e”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Risley v. City of Utica

3. ““Tour orator shows that notwithstanding the validity of the aforesaid contract contained in the aforesaid ordinance of February 21, 1890, and notwithstanding the fact that the bonds were marketed on the faith of said contract, and the waterworks were erected at great expense, and the Waterworks Company complied with the terms and conditions of the contract, the said city of Dawson has by its ordinances and conduct attempted to impair the obligation of said contract, iand has thereby greatly diminished and largely destroyed the value of the property of said Waterworks Company, which constitutes the security possessed by the bondholders, and has deprived bondholders of the rentals which were to be paid by said city under said contract, and said act-ion and threatened action of said city are in fraud and destruction of the rights of bondholders and your orator, as their trustee, under said contract with the city, and the protection guarantied under the constitution of the United States. The aforesaid ordinance passed by said city council of Dawson on June 27, 1894, whereby said city undertook to repudiate said contract, was an attempt on the part of said city of Dawson to impair-the obligation of said contract in violation of the constitution of the United States, and the protection thereby guarantied to private rights. The said city has also passed other ordinances and done acts in attempted impairment of said contract, namely, .the ordinance passed by said city of Dawson on Oc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co. of Baltimore v. Collins Park & B. R.