Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 U.S. 333 - Davis v. Beason

Davis v. Beason’s Empirical Analysis

133 U.S. 333 · 1890

Citation profile

662
cited by 662 later decisions
85
cited 85 times by the Supreme Court
38
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

165 federal appellate · 44 district · 206 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 662 later decisions (85 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher (1961), Cantwell v. State of Connecticut (1940)

165 federal appellate · 44 district · 206 state decisions — followed in 38 states

105018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Reynolds v. States · United States v. Cruikshank · Ex parte Lange · Strauder v. West Virginia

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

  1. “[t]he first amendment to the Constitution ... was intended ... to prohibit legislation for the support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. * * *" (Italics ours.) "In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. * * * This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished while those who do must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices. * * *" "A criminal intent is generally an element of crime, but ev”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The fundamental concept of liberty embodied in that Amendment [Fourteenth] embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts, — freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society. The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to preserve the enforcement of that protection.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.