Tennessee v. Sneed’s Empirical Analysis
96 U.S. 69 · 1877
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1996 · most notably Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934), Barnes v. United States (1973)
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 28 states
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 Sturges v. Crowninshield · Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy · Bronson v. Kinzie · Walker v. Whitehead
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If we assume that prior to 1873 the relator had authority to prosecute his claim against the state by mandamus, and that by the statutes of that year the further use of that form was prohibited to him, the question remains whether an effectual remedy was left to him or provided for him. We think the regulation of the statute gave, him an abundant means of enforcing such right as he possessed. It provided that he might pay his claim to, the collector under protest, giving notice thereof to the Comptroller of the Treasury; that at any time within 30 days thereafter he might sue the officer making the collection; that the case should be tried by any court having jurisdiction, and, if found in favor of plaintiff on the merits, the court should certify that the same was wrongfully paid and ought to be refunded, and the comptroller should thereupon issue his warrant therefor, which should be paid in preference to other claims on the treasury. This remedy is simple and effective. A suit at law to recover money unlawfully exacted is as speedy, as easily tried, and less complicated than a proceeding by mandamus. Every attorney knows how to carry on the former,- while manv would be embarrassed by the forms of the latter. Provision is also made for prompt payment of the amount by the state, if judgment is rendered against the officer on the merits. “We are not cited to any statute authorizing suits to be brought against a state directly, and we know of none. In a special and limited cl”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule seems to be that in modes of proceeding and of forms to enforce the contract,, the legislature has the control, and. may enlarge, limit, or alter them, provided that it does not deny a remedy, or so embarrass it with restrictions and conditions as seriously to impair the value of the right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Antoni v. Greenhow“the bills and' notes of the said corporation, originally made payable, or which shall have become payable on demand in gold or silver coin, shall be receivable at the treasury, and by all tax-collectors and other public.officers, in all payments for taxes or other moneys due the State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Antoni v. Greenhow
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.