Barsky v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
167 F.2d 241 · 1948
Citation profile
97 federal appellate · 19 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 158 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1989 · most notably Tenney v. Brandhove (1951), United States v. Bryan (1950)
97 federal appellate · 19 district · 14 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 550 · 2 U.S.C. § 192
Relies on Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Thornhill v. Alabama · West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette · Olmstead v. United States · Palko v. State of Connecticut
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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against him in any court, except in a prosecution for perjury committed in giving such testimony.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““If Congress has power to inquire into the subjects of Communism and the Communist Party, it has power to identify the individuals who believe in Communism and those who belong to the party. The nature and scope of the program and activities depend in large measure upon the character and number of their adherents. Personnel is part of the subject. Moreover, the accuracy of the information obtained depends in large part upon the knowledge and the attitude of the witness, whether present before the Committee or represented by the testimony of another. We note at this point that the arguments directed to the invalidity of this inquiry under the First Amendment would apply to an inquiry directed to another person as well as to one directed to the individual himself. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“This existing machinery of government has power to inquire into potential threats to itself, not alone for the selfish reason of self-protection, but for the basic reason that having been established by the people as an instrumentality for the protection of the rights of people, it has an obligation to its creators to preserve itself. 167 F.2d at 246.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.