United States v. Temple’s Empirical Analysis
105 U.S. 97 · 1881
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Yates v. United States (1957), Houghton v. Payne (1904)
17 federal appellate · 8 district · 10 state decisions
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 Pott v. Arthur
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our duty is to read the statute according to the natural and obvious import of the language, without resorting to subtle and forced construction for the purpose of either limiting or extending its operation.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is the duty of the courts to enforce it according to its obvious terms and not to insert words and phrases so as to incorporate therein a new and distinct provision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Woods, “the practice . . finds no higher warrant or sanction in the. act'of 1835 than in the act of 1876.”
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.