Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 U.S. 556 - Marbury v. Brooks

Marbury v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

20 U.S. 556 · 1822

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

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

60182218301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

  1. ““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
  2. “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
  3. ““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 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.