United States v. Shipp’s Empirical Analysis
203 U.S. 563 · 1906
Citation profile
182 federal appellate · 51 district · 104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 549 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947), Frank v. Mangum (1915)
182 federal appellate · 51 district · 104 state decisions — followed in 30 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 Mansfield Ry Co v. Swan · Royall · In re Debs · Burrus · Terry
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 549 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But even if the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to entertain Johnson’s petition [for writ of habeas corpus], and if this court had no jurisdiction of the appeal, this court, and this court alone, could decide that such was the law. It and it alone necessarily had jurisdiction to decide whether the case was properly before it.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be that it was an intrusion or perversion of the canon law, as is-suggested by the propounding of interrogatories, and the very phrase, ‘pur-gation by oath’ (juramentum purgatorium). If so, it is a fragment of a system of proof which does not prevail in theory or as a whole, and the reason-why it has not disappeared perhaps may be found in the rarity with which contempts occur. It may be that even now, if the sole question were the intent of an ambiguous act, the proposition would apply. But in this case it is a question of personal presence and overt acts. If the presence and the-acts should be proved, there would be little room for the disavowal of intent. And, when the acts alleged consist in taking part in a murder, it cannot be admitted that a general denial and affidavit should dispose of. the case. * * * Whether or not Rev. Stat. § 725, applies to this court, it embodies-the law so far as it goes. We see no reason for emasculating the power given by that section, and making it so nearly futile as it would be if it were construed to mean that all contemnors willing to run the slight risfc of a conviction for perjury can escape.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he order suspended further proceedings by the State against the prisoner and required that he should be forthcoming to abide the further order of this court. It may be found that what created the mob and led to the crime was the unwillingness of its members to submit to the delay required for the trial of the appeal. From that to the intent to prevent that delay and the hearing of the appeal is a short step. If that step is taken the contempt is proved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Joubert
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.