United States v. Lacher’s Empirical Analysis
134 U.S. 624 · 1890
Citation profile
101 federal appellate · 63 district · 115 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 425 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2022 · most notably United States v. Classic (1941), Yates v. United States (1957)
101 federal appellate · 63 district · 115 state decisions — followed in 26 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 United States v. Wiltberger · United States v. Isham · United States v. Northway · Hammock v. Loan and Trust Company
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 425 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * In short, it appears to me, that the proper course in all these cases, is to search out and follow the true intent of the legislature, and to adopt that sense of the words which harmonizes best with the context, and promotes in the fullest manner, the apparent policy and objects of the legislature.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“penal provisions, like all others, are to be fairly construed according to the legislative intent as' expressed in the enactment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. Whether the said demurrer, so filed, to the first three counts of the indictment aforesaid, ought to be sustained. “ 2. Whether the matters and things alleged and set forth in the first three counts of said indictment constitute an offence or offences under section 5515 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or under any other law or statute of the United States. “ 3. Whether the laws of the State of Tennessee imposed upon said defendants, as such returning officer and judges of election, at the said election, the duty,* when the election was finished and after the polls were closed, of opening the ballot-box used at the said election, at the place of holding the same, to wit, at the place where the ballots of said election were cast. “ 4. Whether,' under the laws of the State of Tennessee, it was a violation of duty imposed upon the defendants, as such judges and officer of election, at the said election, for said defendants, when the said election was finished and after the polls were closed, to remove the ballot-box used at said election from the place where the same was held, and where the ballots were cast at said election, to another place, for the purpose of opening the said ballot-box and reading aloud the names of the persons appearing on each ballot, as contemplated by section 1068 of the Code of Tennessee, (Milliken & Yertrees’ edition). “ 5. Whether it was the duty, under the laws of the State of Tennessee, of the said defendants, as judges and officer ”
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.