Logan v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
144 U.S. 263 · 1892
Citation profile
834 federal appellate · 114 district · 359 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,722 later decisions (207 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970), Glasser v. United States (1942)
834 federal appellate · 114 district · 359 state decisions — followed in 44 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Reynolds v. States · United States v. Cruikshank · United States v. Josef Perez
Cited together with Wade v. Hunter · Simmons v. United States · 'The Ku-Klux Cases' Yarbrough · United States v. Josef Perez · Green v. United States
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 1,722 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`At common law, and on general principles of jurisprudence, when not controlled by express statute giving effect within the State which enacts it to a conviction and sentence in another State, such conviction and sentence can have no effect, by way of penalty, or of personal disability or disqualification, beyond the limits of the State in which the judgment is rendered.' ... 141 So.2d at 23 .”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Being enacted for his [the defendant’s] benefit, he may doubtless waive it', but he has a right to insist upon it, and, if he seasonably does so, the trial cannot lawfully proceed until the requirement has been complied with.” P. 304, 12 S.Ct. p. 630. (Emphasis added.)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As the defendants were indicted and to be tried for a crime punishable with death, those jurors who stated on voir dire that they had ‘conscientious scruples in regard to the infliction of the death penalty for crime’ were rightly permitted to be challenged by the government for cause. A juror who has conscientious scruples on any subject, which prevent him from standing indifferent between the government and the accused, and from trying the case according to the law and the evidence, is not an impartial juror. This court has accordingly held that a person who has a conscientious belief that polygamy is rightful may be challenged for cause on a trial for polygamy. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , 147, 157 [ 25 L.Ed. 244 ]; Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304 , 310 [ 26 L.Ed. 481 ], And the principle has been applied to the very question now before us by Mr. Justice Story in United States v. Cornell [Fed.Cas.No.14,-868], 2 Mason, 91, 105, and by Mr. Justice Baldwin in United States v. Wilson [Fed.Cas.No.16,730], Baldw., 78, 83, as well as by the courts of every state in which the question has arisen, and by express statute in many states. Whart.Crim.Pl. (9th Ed.) § 664.””
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.