Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 U.S. 274 - Western Union Telegraph Company v. Samuel Chiles

Western Union Telegraph Company v. Samuel Chiles’s Empirical Analysis

214 U.S. 274 · 1909

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
January 2010
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2010 · most notably Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Industrial Accident Commission (1935), Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co. (1924)

4 federal appellate · 8 district · 42 state decisions

200190919101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe

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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““As respects such a military reservation — that is, one which is neither excepted from the jurisdiction of the state at the time of her admission nor established upon lands purchased therefor with the consent of her Legislature — the state undoubtedly may cede her jurisdiction to the United States and may make the cession either absolute or qualified as to her may appear desirable, provided the qualification is consistent with the purposes for which the reservation is maintained and is accepted by the United States. And, where such a cession is made and accepted, it will be determinative of the jurisdiction of both the United States and the state within the reservation. But Camp Pike is not in the same class with any of the reservations of which we have spoken and should not be confused with any of them. Nor should it be confused with military or other reservations within a territory of the United States. It is not questioned, nor could it well be, that Camp Pike comes within the words ‘forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings’ in the constitutional provision. The land therefor was purchased by the United States with the consent of the Legislature of the state in 1917. The constitutional provision says that Congress shall have power to exercise ‘exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever ’ over a place' so purchased for such a purpose. ‘Exclusive legislation’ is consistent only with exclusive jurisdiction. It can have no other meaning as to the s”
    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.