Dealy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
152 U.S. 539 · 1894
Citation profile
184 federal appellate · 46 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 377 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2025 · most notably Glasser v. United States (1942), Braverman v. United States (1942)
184 federal appellate · 46 district · 57 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Hastings Co v. Whitney · United States v. Britton · In re Palliser
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 377 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But manifestly the description in the indictment does not need to be any more definite and precise than the proof of the crime. In other words, if certain facts make out the crime, it is sufficient to charge those facts, and it is obviously unnecessary to state that which is not essential.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the conspiracy was entered into within the limits of the United States and the jurisdiction of the court, the crime was then complete, and the subsequent overt act in pursuance thereof may have been done anywhere.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is familiar law that separate counts are united in one indictment, either because entirely separate and distinct offenses are intended to be charged, or because the pleader, having in mind but a single offense, varies the statement in the several counts as to the manner or means of its commission in order to avoid at the trial, an acquittal by reason of any unforeseen lack of harmony between the allegations and the proofs.' 1 Bish. on Cr. Proe. § 422. Yet, whatever the purpose may be, each count is in form a distinct charge of a separate offense, and hence a verdict of guilty or not guilty as to it is not responsive to the charge in any other count.””
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.