The Diamond Rings’s Empirical Analysis
183 U.S. 176 · 1901
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably Kepner v. United States (1904), Graham v. Goodcell (1931)
43 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 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 Edye v. Robertson · Downes v. Bidwell · De Lima v. Bidwell · Dooley v. United States · James Foster v. David Neilson
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). By congressional action, the United States organized a tripartite system of government in the Philippines, over which the United States reserved ultimate control. 5 Congress established the office of the Governor General of the Philippine Islands who would be appointed by the United States President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Governor General exercised”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The meaning of the treaty cannot be controlled by subsequent explanations of some of those who may have voted to ratify it.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(Public Resolution — -No. 51 — 74th Congress). “(H. J. Res. 290) “Joint Resolution “To amend an act entitled ‘An Act providing for the ratification of Joint Resolution Numbered 59 of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, approved by the Governor May 5, 1930, imposing an import duty on coffee imported into Puerto Rico,’ approved June 18, 1934. “Whereas in enacting the Act approved June 18, 1934, ratifying the taxes and duties imposed by Joint Resolution Numbered 59 enacted by the Legislature of Puerto Rico, and approved by the Governor of Puerto Rico May 5, 1930, the Congress understood and intended in ratifying such Joint Resolution Numbered 59 of the Legislature of Puerto Rico that the ‘import duty’ thereby and by subsequent acts of the Legislature of Puerto Rico ‘levied on all coffee imported into Puerto Rico’ included and was intended to be levied upon all coffee brought into Puerto Rico whether from a foreign country or from any State, Territory, district, or possession of the United States, or other place subject to its jurisdiction; Therefore be it “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act of Congress entitled ‘An Act providing for the ratification of Joint Resolution Numbered 59 of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, approved by the Governor May 5, 1930, imposing an import duty on coffee imported into Puerto Rico,’ approved June 18, 1934, be, and it is hereby, amended so as to read as follows: “ ‘Tha”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.