Cross v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis
146 U.S. 82 · 1892
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962), United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. (1952)
23 federal appellate · 3 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Ex parte McCardle · Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes · United States v. Sanges · Lau Ow Bew v. United States · Wales v. Whitney
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) writ of habeas corpus, sued out by one arrested for crime, is a civil suit or proceeding, brought by him to assert the civil right of personal liberty, against those who are holding him in custody as a criminal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That the Supreme Court of the United States shall have jurisdiction- to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm the final judgments and decrees of .the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands in all actions, cases, causes, and proceedings now pending therein or hereafter determined thereby in which the Constitution or any statute, treaty, title, right, or privilege of the United States is involved, or in causes in which the value in controversy exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars, or in which the title or possession of real estate exceeding in value the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars, to be ascertained by the oath of either party or of other competent witnesses, is involved or brought in question; and such final judgments or decrees may and can be reviewed, revised, reversed, modified, or .affirmed by said Supreme Court of the United States on appeal or writ of error by the party aggrieved, in the same manner, under the same regulations, and by the same procedure, as far as applicable, as the final judgments and decrees of the Circuit Courts of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sec. 8. That any final judgment or decree of the said Court of Appeals may be reexamined and affirmed, reversed or modified by the Supreme Court of the United States, upon writ of error or appeal, in all causes in which the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars, in the same manner and under the same regulations as heretofore provided for in cases of writs of error on judgment or appeals from decrees rendered in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia; and also in cases, without regard to the sum or value of the matter in dispute, wherein is involved the validity of any patent or copyright, or in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or au authority exercised under the United States.”
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.