Allen v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
164 U.S. 492 · 1896
Citation profile
2,278 federal appellate · 71 district · 2,232 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5,407 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2026 · most notably Wong Sun v. United States (1963), Kent v. United States (1966)
2,278 federal appellate · 71 district · 2,232 state decisions — followed in 50 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 Coffin v. United States · Alberty v. United States · Hickory v. United States · Beard v. United States
Cited together with Jenkins v. United States · Glasser v. United States · Brasfield v. United States · Lowenfield v. Phelps · Burton v. United States
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 5,407 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The very object of the jury system is to secure unanimity by a comparison of views, and by arguments among the jurors themselves. It certainly cannot be the law that each juror should not listen with deference to the arguments and with a distrust of his own judgment, if he finds a large majority of the jury taking a different view of the case from what he does himself. It cannot be that each juror should go to the jury room with a blind determination that the verdict shall represent his opinion of the case at that moment; or, that he should close his ears to the arguments of men who are equally honest and intelligent as himself.”
130 later decisions quote this exact passage““Thus, also, a sane man is conclusively presumed to contemplate the natural and probable consequences of his own acts; and therefore the intent to murder is conclusively inferred from the deliberate use of a deadly weapon.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Romano
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.