Chin Yow v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
208 U.S. 8 · 1908
Citation profile
316 federal appellate · 148 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 648 later decisions (59 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2023 · most notably Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr (2001), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
316 federal appellate · 148 district · 10 state decisions
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. Wong Kim Ark · Japanese Immigrant Case · United States v. Ju Toy · Lem Moon Sing v. United States
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 648 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Unless and until it is proved to the satisfaction of the judge that a hearing properly so called was denied, the merits of the ease are not open, and, we may add, the denial of a hearing cannot he established by proving that the decision was wrong.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Wing You · Frick v. Lewis““ * * * The petitioner was prevented by the officials • * * from obtaining testimony, including that of named witnesses, and that had he been given a proper opportunity he could have produced overwhelming evidence that he was bom in the United States. * * * If the petitioner was not denied a fair opportunity to produce the evidence that he desired, or a fair though summary hearing, the case can proceed no farther.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The petitioner then is imprisoned for deportation without the process of law to which he is given a right. Habeas corpus is the usual remedy for unlawful imprisonment. But, on the other hand, as yet the petitioner has not established his right to enter the country. He is imprisoned only to prevent his entry, and an unconditional release would make the entry complete without the requisite proof. The courts must deal with the matter somehow, and there seems to be no way so convenient as a trial of the merits before the judge. If the petitioner proves his citizenship, a longer restraint would be illegal. If ho fails, the order of deportation would remain in force.””
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.