Bartos v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
19 F.2d 722 · 1927
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2010 · most notably Jordan v. De George (1951), Tseung Chu v. Cornell (1957)
22 federal appellate · 4 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 Bradley v. Fisher · Ex parte Garland · Wall · Wilson · Ex parte Robinson
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. This is an old phrase in the law, and its meaning is demonstrated in cases in which a prior conviction is attempted to be proven for the purpose of impeaching a witness. It is subjective in meaning and restricted to those who commit the gravest offenses, — felonies, infamous crimes, those that are malum in se. They disclose the inherent character, that he is of depraved mind, and because thereof he is not worthy of belief even under oath. Crimes of a heinous nature have always been considered by laymen and lawyers alike as involving moral turpitude, regardless of legislative action on the subject. A thief is a debased man, he has no moral character. The fact that a statute may classify his acts as grand and petit larceny, and not punish the latter with imprisonment, and declare it to be only a misdemeanor, does not destroy the fact that theft, whether it be grand or petit larceny involves moral turpitude. It is malum in se, and so the consensus of opinion — statute or no statute — deduces from the commission of crimes malum in se the conclusion that the perpetrator is depraved in mind and is without moral character, because, forsooth, his very act involves moral turpitude. . . .” (at 724, citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Price v. State“It seems clearly dedueible from the above cited authorities that the words ‘moral turpitude’ had a positive and fixed meaning at common law . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jordan v. De George“the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jordan v. De George
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.