Hardyman v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
183 F.2d 308 · 1950
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1984
14 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 8 U.S.C. § 1
Relies on Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Screws v. United States · Snowden v. Hughes · United States v. Cruikshank · Logan 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire, or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; each of such persons shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment, with or without hard labor, not less than six months nor more than six years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The delineation by the courts of the narrow area of rights which Congress has constitutional power to protect from individual invasion has developed through the application of what is now 18 U.S.C.A. § 241 , originally enacted May 31, 1870. This statute has been applied to individual deprivations of _the right to vote for federal offices, Ex parte Yarborough, 1884, 110. U.S. 651, 4 S.Ct. 152 , 28 L.Ed. 274 ; the right to enjoy the privileges granted by the homestead laws, (United States v. Waddell, 1884, 112 U.S. 76 , 5 S.Ct. 35 , 28 L.Ed. 673 ; the right to protection from attack while in the custody of a federal marshal, Logan v. United States, 1892, 144 U.S. 263 , 12 S.Ct. 617 , 36 L.Ed. 429 ; and the right to inform federal officers of violations of federal law, In re Quarles, 1895, 158 U.S. 532 , 15 S.Ct. 959 , 39 L.Ed. 1080 ; Motes v. United States, 1900, 178 U.S. 458 , 20 S.Ct. 993 , 44 L.Ed. 1150 . The cases also indicate by way of dictum that the right to assemble for the purpose of discussing the policies of the federal Government and petitioning that Government for redress of grievances is within the scope of direct federal protection.” 183 F.2d at 313”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.