Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 U.S. 110 - Rapier Dupre

Rapier Dupre’s Empirical Analysis

1892

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
7
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Charles F. Champion, Appt. v. John C. Ames, United States Marshal (1901), People v. . Most (1902)

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

5018921900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Ex parte Jackson

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

  1. ““Tlie argument that there is a distinction between mala prohibita and mala in so, and that congress might forbid the use of the mails in promotion of such acts as are universally regarded as mala in, se, including all such crimes as murder, arson, burglary, etc., and the offense of circulating obscene books and papers, but cannot do so in respect of other matters which it might regard as criminal or immoral, but which it has no power itself to prohibit, involves a concession which is fatal to the contention of petitioners, since it would be for congress to determine what are within and what without the rule; but wo think there is no room for such a distinction here, and Uiat it must, be left to congress, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to determine in what maimer it will exercise the power it undoubtedly possesses. We cannot regard the right to operate a lottery as a fundamental right infringed by the legislation in question, nor are we able to see that congress can be hold, in its enactment, to have abridged the freedom of the press. The circulation. of newspapers is not prohibited, but the government declines itself to become an agent In the circulation of printed matter which it regards as injurious to the people. The freedom of communication is not abridged, within the intent and meaning of the constitutional provision, unless congress is absolutely destitute of any discretion as to what shall or shall not be carried in the mails, and compelled arbitrarily to assis”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The power possessed by congress embraces the regulation of the entire postal system of the country. The right to designate what shall be carried necessarily involves the right to determine what shall he excluded."’”
    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.