Neal v. Delaware’s Empirical Analysis
103 U.S. 370 · 1880
Citation profile
132 federal appellate · 24 district · 226 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 707 later decisions (140 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Glasser v. United States (1942), Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
132 federal appellate · 24 district · 226 state decisions — followed in 38 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 Strauder v. West Virginia · Ex parte Virginia · Virginia v. Rives
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 707 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Snowden v. Hughes · Ross v. State“[T]he [Fifteenth] amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We have said the prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment are addressed to the states. * * * They have reference to actions of tbe political body denominated a state, by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A state acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. Tbe constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the state, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a state government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the state, and is clothed with the state’s power, his act is that of the state. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning. Then the state has clothed one of its agents with power to annul or to evade it.””
2 later decisions 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.