Robertson v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis
165 U.S. 275 · 1897
Citation profile
144 federal appellate · 59 district · 136 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 562 later decisions (97 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably California v. Green (1970), Roth v. United States (1957)
144 federal appellate · 59 district · 136 state decisions — followed in 27 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 Ball v. United States · Brown v. Walker · Huntington v. Attrill · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's
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 562 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had ■ been formally expressed. Thus ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons[.]”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“the right of parents and guardians to the custody of their minor children or wards.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly Irnown as the ‘Bill of Bights,’ were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. * * * Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.” See, also, 5 Wigmore, Evidence (3rd Ed.), p. 127, § 1397.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.