United States v. Ju Toy’s Empirical Analysis
198 U.S. 253 · 1905
Citation profile
256 federal appellate · 143 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 663 later decisions (93 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2022 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), Olim v. Wakinekona (1983)
256 federal appellate · 143 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 19 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Royall · United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · Terry · Hagar v.
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 663 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The petitioner, although physically within our boundaries, is to be regarded if if he had been stopped at the limit of our jurisdiction and kept there while his right to enter was under debate.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`punishment inflicted on criminals by compelling them to quit a city, place, or country for a specified period of time, or for life,'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Even though the fifth amendment does apply to one seeking entrance to this country, and to deny him admission may deprive him of liberty, due process of law does not necessarily require a judicial trial, and Congress may intrust the decision of his right to enter to an executive officer. Under the Chinese exclusion and the immigration laws, where a person of Chinese descent asks admission to the United States, claiming that he is a native-born citizen thereof, and the lawfully designated officers find that he is not, and upon appeal that finding is approved by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and it does not appear that there was any abuse of discretion, such finding and action of the executive officers should be treated by the courts as having been made by a competent tribunal, with due process of law, and as final and conclusive; and in habeas corpus proceedings, commenced thereafter, and based solely on the ground of the applicant’s alleged citizenship, the court should dismiss the writ, and not direct new and further evidence as to the question of citizenship. A person whose right to enter the United States is questioned under the immigration laws is to be regarded as if he had stopped at the limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its boundaries.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.