Charles F. Champion, Appt. v. John C. Ames, United States Marshal’s Empirical Analysis
1901
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 21 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973), Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
1 federal appellate · 21 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Gibbons v. Ogden · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We decide nothing more in the present case than that lottery tickets are subjects of traffic among those who choose to sell or buy them; that the carriage of such tickets by independent carriers from one state to another is therefore interstate commerce; that under its power to regulate commerce among the several states, Congress — subject to the limitations imposed by the constitution upon the exercise of the powers granted —has plenary authority over such commerce,- and may prohibit the carriage of such tickets from state to state; and that legislation to that end, and of that character, is not inconsistent with any limitation or restriction imposed upon the exercise of the powers granted to Congress.” (p. 363.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““These contracts are not articles of commerce in any proper meaning of the word. They are not subjects of trade and barter offered in the market as something having an existence and value independent of the parties to them. They are not commodities to be shipped or forwarded from one State to another, and then put' up for sale. They are like other personal contracts between parties which are completed by their signature and the transfer of the consideration. Such contracts are not interstate transactions, though the parties may be domiciled in different States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hemphill v. Orloff““The provision in the Constitution does not, as we believe, exclude Congress from legislating with regard to contracts of the above nature, while in the exercise of its constitutional right to regulate commerce among the states. On the contrary, we think the provision regarding the liberty of the citizen is to some extent limited by the commerce clause of the Constitution.””
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.