Ex parte Clarke’s Empirical Analysis
100 U.S. 399 · 1879
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Fay v. Noia (1963), Smiley v. Holm (1932)
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 20 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Ex Parte in the Matter of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. William Dennison Governor and Executive Authority of the State of Ohio · In Re Thomas Kaine an Alleged Fugitive from Great Britain · Chirac v. Chirac
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The clause of the Constitution under which the power of Congress, as well as" that of the State legislatures, to regulate the election of senators and representatives arises, is as follows: ‘The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators.’ “It seems to us that the natural sense of these words is the contrary of that assumed by the counsel of the petitioners. After first authorizing the States to prescribe the regulations, it is added, ‘The Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations.’ ‘Make or alter:’ What is the plain meaning of these words? If not under the prepossession of some abstract theory of the relations between the State and national governments, -we should not have any difficulty in understanding them. There is no declaration that the regulations shall be made either wholly by the State legislatures or wholly by Congress. If Congress does not interfere, of course they may be made wholly by the State; ¡but if it chooses to interfere, there is nothing in the words to prevent its doing so, either wholly or partially. On the contrary, their necessary implication is that it may do cither. * * * “So in the case of laws for regulating the elections of representatives to Congress. The State may make regulations on the subject, Congress ma”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1 do not think that any apprehension need be felt if the supervision of all elections in their respective states should also be left to them.””
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.