Todd v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
158 U.S. 278 · 1895
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 80 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 311 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably In re Oliver (1948), Keeble v. United States (1973)
79 federal appellate · 80 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Logan v. United States · Starr v. United States · United States v. Lacher · Benson v. McMahon
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 311 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is axiomatic that statutes creating and defining crimes cannot be extended by intendment, and that no act, however wrongful, can be- punished under such a statute unless clearly within its terms. “There can be no constructive offences, and, before a man can be punished, his case must be plainly and unmistakably within the statute.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A court is defined to be a place in which justice is judicially administered. It is the exercise of judicial power, by the proper officer or officers, at a time and place appointed by law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That a commissioner is not a judge of a court of tlie United States within the constitutional sense is apparent and conceded. He is simply an officer of the circuit court, appointed and removable by that court. Rev. St. § 627; Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230 ; U. S. v. Allred, 155 U. S. 591 , 15 Sup. Ct. 231 . A preliminary examination before him is not a proceeding in the court which appointed him, or in any court of the United States. Such an examination may be had, not merely before a commissioner, but also before any justice or judge of the United States, or before any chancellor, judge of a state court, mayor of a city, justice of tiie peace, or other state magistrate. Roy. St. § 1014. And it cannot be pretended That one of those state officers, while conducting a preliminary investigation, is holding a court of the United States. Technically, we spealc of an examining magistrate, and not of an examining court. The distinction is recognized in the statutes (section 1014), by which sundry judicial officers of the United States and of the states are authorized 1o conduct an examination, and imprison or bail the defendant ‘for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the offense.’ Also section Oil, which provides that 'all writs and processes issuing from the courts of the United States shall be under the seal of the court from which.they issue, and shall be signed by the clerk thereof.’ But a commissioner, like a justice of the peace, is not o”
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.