Benson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
146 U.S. 325 · 1892
Citation profile
145 federal appellate · 23 district · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 359 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Washington v. Texas (1967), Rock v. Arkansas (1987)
145 federal appellate · 23 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 23 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 Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe · The United States v. Thomas Reid and Edward Clements · United States v. Stone · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. McGlinn
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 359 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he courts were afraid to trust the intelligence of jurors. But the last fifty years have wrought a great change in these respects, and today the tendency is to enlarge the domain of competency and to submit to the jury for their consideration as to the credibility of the witness those matters which heretofore were ruled sufficient to justify his exclusion. This change has been wrought partially by legislation and partially by judicial construction.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is contended by appellant’s counsel, that within the scope of those decisions, jurisdiction passed to the general government only over such portions of the reserve as are actually used for military purposes, and that the particular part of the reserve on which the crime charged was committed was used solely for farming purposes. But in matters of that kind the courts follow the action of the political department of the government. The entire tract had been legally reserved for military purposes. U. S. v. Stone, 2 Wall. 525 , 537, 17 L.Ed. 765 . The character and purposes of its occupation having been officially and legally established by that branch of the government which has control over such matters, it is not open to the courts, on a question of jurisdiction, to inquire what may be the actual uses to which any portion of the reserve is temporarily put. There was therefore jurisdiction in the circuit court, and the first contention of plaintiff in error must be overruled.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It was thought that if two persons charged with the same crime were allowed to testify on behalf of each other, 'each would try to swear the other out of the charge.' This rule, as well as the other disqualifications for interest, rested on the unstated premises that the right to present witnesses was subordinate to the court's interest in preventing perjury, and that erroneous decisions were best avoided by preventing the jury from hearing any testimony that might be perjured, even if it were the only testimony available on a crucial issue.”
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.