Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 U.S. 255 - United States v. Chase

United States v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis

135 U.S. 255 · 1890

Citation profile

385
cited by 385 later decisions
35
cited 35 times by the Supreme Court
13
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

129 federal appellate · 45 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 385 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2021 · most notably Roth v. United States (1957), Stanley v. Georgia (1969)

129 federal appellate · 45 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 13 states

61018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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. Reese · Ex parte Jackson · United States v. Hartwell

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

  1. “when there is, in the same statute, a particular enactment, and also a general one, which, in its most comprehensive sense, would include what is embraced in the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “every article or thing intended or adapted for any indecent or immoral use.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We recognize the value of the rule of construing statutes with reference to the evil they were designed to suppress as an important aid in ascertaining the meaning of language in them which is ambiguous and equally susceptible of conflicting constructions. But this court has repeatedly held that this rule does not apply to instances which are not embraced in the language employed in the statute, or implied from a fair interpretation of its context, even though they may involve the same mischief which the statute was designed to suppress.””
    4 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.