McClaughry v. Deming’s Empirical Analysis
186 U.S. 49 · 1902
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 23 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 303 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Frank v. Mangum (1915), Schlesinger v. Councilman (1975)
84 federal appellate · 23 district · 4 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 Norton v. Shelby County · Carter v. McClaughry · Ex Parte Tobias Watkins · Coy · Runkle 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 303 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A court-martial organized under the laws of the United States is a court of special and limited jurisdiction. It is called into existence for a special purpose and to perform a particular duty. . . . To give effect to its sentences it must appear affirmatively and unequivocally that the court was legally constituted; that it had jurisdiction; that all the statutory regulations governing its proceedings had been complied with and that its sentence was conformable to law.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“] is the creature of statute, and, as a body or tribunal, it must be convened and constituted in entire conformity with the provisions of the statute, or else it is without jurisdiction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“when in appointing such members he violates the statute, as in this case, by appointing men to compose the court that the statute says he shall not appoint, the body thus convened is not a legal court-martial, and has no jurisdiction over either the subject-matter of the charges against a volunteer officer or over the person of such officer.”
2 later decisions 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.