Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 F.1d 481 - In re Parrott

In re Parrott’s Empirical Analysis

1 F. 481 · 1880

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 1997
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1997 · most notably Terrace v. Thompson (1923), Holden v. Hardy (1898)

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

100188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Brown v. Maryland · Sinking-Fund Cases v. United States Central Pacific Railroad Company · Windsor v. McVeigh · Railroad Company v. Husen · Henderson v. Mayor of the City of New York Commissioners of Immigration v. North German Lloyd

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

  1. ““The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ‘Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person witMn its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. * * * The fourteenth amendment was undoubtedly intended not only that there shoud be no arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property, but that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of their personal and civil rights: that all persons should be equally entitled to pursue their happiness and acquire and enjoy property; that they should have like access to the courts of the country for the protection of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts;- that no impediment should be interposed to the pursuits of any one, except as applied to the same pursuits by others under like circumstances; “ that no greater burdens should be laid upon one than are laid upon others in the same calling and condition; * * * and the rights of the complainant are not less, because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of Ch”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In my view, a law which prohibits a large class of citizens from adopting a lawful employment, or from following a lawful employment previously adopted, does deprive them of liberty, as well as property, without due process of law. Their right of choice is a portion of their liberty. Their occur pationis their property. Such a law also deprives those citizens of the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the last clause of the section.” Id. 122 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Beyond doubt these words ['privileges and immunities"] are words of very comprehensive meaning; but if will be suflieientto say that the clause plainly and unmistakably secures and protects the rights of a citizen of one slate to pass into any other state of the Union for the purpose of engaging in lawful commerce, trade, or business without molestation, to acquire personal property, to take and hold real estate,” etc. 12 Wall. 430 .”
    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.