Duncan v. Missouri’s Empirical Analysis
152 U.S. 377 · 1894
Citation profile
76 federal appellate · 24 district · 175 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 417 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2017 · most notably Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939)
76 federal appellate · 24 district · 175 state decisions — followed in 29 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 Cummings v. The State of Missouri · Kring v. State of Missouri · Leeper v. State of Texas · Caldwell v. State of Texas
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 417 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“leave untouched all the substantial protections with which existing law surrounds the person accused of crime.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage““But the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States protected by the fourteenth amendment are privileges and immunities arising out of the nature and essential character of the federal government, and granted or secured by the constitution.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be said, generally speaking, that an ex post facto law is one which imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was committed, or an additional punishment to that then prescribed, or changes the rules of evidence by which less or different testimony is sufficient to convict than was then required, or, in short, in relation to the offense or its consequences alters the situation of the party to his disadvantage. . . . But the prescribing of different modes of procedure, and the abolition of courts and creation of new ones, leaving untouched all the substantial protections with which the existing law surrounds the person accused of crime, are not considered within the constitutional inhibition.” Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 377, 382 , 14 Sup. Ct. 570.”
2 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.