Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 U.S. 366 - White v. Berry

White v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis

171 U.S. 366 · 1898

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 15 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Sampson v. Murray (1974)

12 federal appellate · 15 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 11 states

17018981900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Sawyer · Barron v. Burnside · Morgan v. Nunn · Page v. Moffett

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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a court of equity will not, by injunction, restrain an executive officer from making a wrongful removal of a subordinate appointee,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is a general rule that a court of equity has no jurisdiction in matters of a political nature, and that no injunction to protect a person in the enjoyment of a political right or to assist him in acquiring such a right will be granted. No such jurisdiction has ever been conceded to a chancery court, either by the English or American judiciary. ... To assume jurisdiction to control the exercise of political powers, or to protect the purely political rights of individuals, would be to invade the domain of the other departments of government, or of the courts of common law. In line with this principle courts of equity have uniformly refused to interfere by injunction in controversies relating to public office. Thus, such right as a person may have to hold a public office is not a property right which equity will enforce, although he may have a right in the emoluments of his office which he may enforce in an action at law to recover the same, nor, on the other hand, will it interfere by injunction to prevent a person from entering on the duties of a public office.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “until he shall be removed therefrom by proper proceedings had under the civil service act, and the rules and regulations made thereunder, or by judicial proceedings at law . . ..”
    1 later decision 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.