Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 U.S. 624 - Converse

Converse’s Empirical Analysis

137 U.S. 624 · 1891

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

8 district · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2013 · most notably Fay v. Noia (1963), Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York (1905)

8 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 19 states

3201891190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Kemmler · Arrowsmith v. Harmoning · Baldwin v. State of Kansas · Reynolds v. Burns

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

  1. “"Appellant has been subjected, as all persons within the state of Michigan are, to the law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice, and it is impossible to hold that a judgment so arrived at is such an unrestrained and arbitrary exercise of power as to be utterly void. We repeat, as has been so often said before, that the fourteenth amendment undoubtedly forbids any arbitrary deprivation of life, liberty, or property, and, in the administration of criminal justice, requires that no different or higher punishment shall be imposed on one than is imposed on all for like offenses, but it was not designed to interfere with the power of the state to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nor with the exercise of that power in the adjudications of the courts of a state in administering the process provided by the law of the state. The supreme court of Michigan did not exceed its jurisdiction, or deliver a judgment abridging appellant's privileges or immunities, or depriving him of the law of the land of his domicile. (Citations Omitted).””
    3 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.