Lem Moon Sing v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
158 U.S. 538 · 1895
Citation profile
145 federal appellate · 82 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 414 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1951)
145 federal appellate · 82 district · 8 state decisions
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 Edye v. Robertson · Whitney v. Robertson · Nishimura Ekiu v. United States · Chae Chan Ping v. United States · Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Taggart
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 414 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In every-' ease where an alien is excluded from admission into the United States, under any law or treaty now existing, or hereafter made, the decision ■of the appropriate customs or immigration officer, if adverse to the admission of such alien, shall be final, unless reversed on appeal to the secretary of the treasury.” 28 Stat. 390 .”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““He is none the less an alien because oí his having a commercial domicil in this country. ~ w His personal rights when ho is in this country, and suen oí bis property as is here during his absence, are as fully protected by the supreme law of the land as if ho were a native or naturalized citizen oí the United States. Hut when he has voluntariiy gone from the country, and is beyond its jurisdiction, being an alien, be cannot re-enter the United States in viola Hon of the will of the government as expressed in enactments of the law-making power.””
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.