Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 U.S. 457 - Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States

Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

143 U.S. 457 · 1892

Citation profile

2,823
cited by 2,823 later decisions
183
cited 183 times by the Supreme Court
44
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

1,008 federal appellate · 242 district · 425 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,823 later decisions (183 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Caminetti v. United States (1917), Sorrells v. United States (1932)

1,008 federal appellate · 242 district · 425 state decisions — followed in 44 states

578018921900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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. Kirby · United States v. Fisher · Francois Fenelon v. The Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of Philadelphia · Oates v. National Bank

Cited together with United States v. American Trucking Associations · United States v. Kirby · Markham v. Cabell · United Steelworkers of America v. Weber · Public Citizen v. United States Department of Justice

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 2,823 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers.”
    107 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such eases should prevail over its letter.””
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If a literal construction of the words of a statute be absurd, the act must be so construed as to avoid the absurdity.”
    13 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.