Carter v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
177 U.S. 496 · 1900
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 20 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1986 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Carter v. McClaughry (1902)
56 federal appellate · 20 district · 5 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 Ex parte Lange · Pullman's Co v. Central Transp Co · Holt v. Indiana Manufacturing Co. · New Orleans v. Benjamin · United States v. Jahn
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Undoubtedly, where the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court depends solely on diverse citizenship, and it turns out that the case involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States, or the constitutionality of a law of the United States or the validity or construction of a treaty is drawn in question, or the Constitution or law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, the Circuit Court of Appeals may certify the constitutional or treaty question up, and proceed as thereupon advised, or may decide the whole case; but language should not have been used susceptible of the meaning that, in cases where the jurisdiction below is invoked on the ground of diverse citizenship, the Circuit Court of Appeals might decline to take jurisdiction, or, in other words, might dismiss the appeal or writ of error for want of jurisdiction. The mere fact that in such a case one or more of the constitutional questions have so arisen that a direct resort to this court might be had does not deprive the Circuit Court of Appeals of jurisdiction, or justify it in declining to exercise it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The eighth section of article 1 of the Constitution provides that the Congress shall have power ‘to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,’ and in the exercise of that power Congress has enacted rules for the regulation of the army known as the Articles of War, Rev. Stat. § 1342 [TJ. S. Comp. St. 1001, p. 9441. Every officer, before he enters the duties of his office, subscribes to these articles, and places himself within the power of courts-martial to pass on any offense which he may have committed in contravention of them. Courts-martial are lawful tribunals, with authority to finally determine any case over which they have jurisdiction ; and their proceedings, when confirmed as provided, are not open to review by the civil tribunals, except for the purpose of ascertaining whether the military court had jurisdiction of the person and subject-matter, and whetb er, though having such jurisdiction, it had exceeded its powers in the sen-ten ee pronounced."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Dickey
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.