Grafton v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
206 U.S. 333 · 1907
Citation profile
178 federal appellate · 63 district · 111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 517 later decisions (76 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Crowell v. Benson (1932), United States v. Dixon (1993)
178 federal appellate · 63 district · 111 state decisions — followed in 32 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 United States v. Cruikshank · United States v. Kagama · Kepner v. United States · Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe · Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca
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 517 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We assume as indisputable, on principle and authority, that before a person can be said to have been put in jeopardy of life or limb the court in which he was acquitted or convicted must have had jurisdiction to try him for the offense charged.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The express prohibition of double jeopardy for the same offense means that wherever such prohibition is applicable, either by operation of the Constitution or by action of Congress, no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. Consequently, a civil court proceeding under the authority of the United States cannot withhold from an officer or soldier of the Army the full benefit of that guaranty, after he has been once tried in a military court of competent jurisdiction. Congress, by express constitutional provision, has the power to prescribe rules for the government and regulation of the Army, but those rules must be interpreted in connection with the prohibition against a man’s being put twice in jeopardy for the same offense. The former provision must not be so interpreted as to nullify the latter. If, therefore, a person be tried for an offense in a tribunal deriving its jurisdiction and authority from the United States and is acquitted or convicted, he cannot again be tried for the same offense in another tribunal deriving its jurisdiction and authority from the United States. A different interpretation finds no sanction in the Articles of War; for the 102d Article of War (which is the same as Article 87, adopted in 1806, 2 Stat. 369 ) declares that ‘no person’ —referring, we take it, to persons in the Army — ‘shall be tried a second time for the same offense.’ But we rest our decision of this question upon the broad ground that th”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; * * *””
2 later decisions 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.