Marbury v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
20 U.S. 556 · 1822
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), Roberts v. United States (1980)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 12 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 District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Wheaton v. Sexton's Lessee · 1 Johns. Cas. 205 - Neilson v. Blight
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The fact, in its strongest aspect, is, that a deed was made, giving this preference, in the hope that it would propitiate the preferred creditors, and prevent their'being so active as they might otherwise be in proceeding against the criminal. But the facts, as they stand show no agreement made at any time to forbear to prosecute, nor that the interest of the creditors would be in any manner affected by the institution of a prosecution, and carrying it on to the conviction of the offender. “If Eitzhugh had remained, and his crime had not been discovered, he might have sold all the property comprised in this deed, and might have applied the money to the notes he had counterfeited. His hope that this act would conceal the crime, and save him from punishment, would not have vitiated the transaction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It may be the duty of a citizen to accuse every offender, and to proclaim every offense which comes to his knowledge; but the law which would punish him in every case for not performing this duty is too harsh for man.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To advance money for a son-in-law to repair the frauds he had committed, even with the hope of concealing th© perpetration of them, is not, we think, an offense which may not be excused; nor can a security taken for the repayment of money - so advanced be deemed fraudulent. If the notes were to be taken upon condition that the holders would forbear to prosecute the criminal, or if the repayment of the money advanced were to jlepend upon his escape from prosecution, the validity of the contract might well be questioned. But the undertaking of Marbury was unconditional, as was the security for the repayment of the money advanced. The only feature in the transaction to which blame is attached is the attempt of a father-in-law to conceal the forgeries of a son-in-law, by paying off the notes he had forged. It may be the duty of a citizen to accuse every offender and to proclaim every offense which comes to his knowledge; but the law which would punish him in every case for not performing this duty is too harsh for man.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Yowell v. Walker
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.