United States v. Stevenson’s Empirical Analysis
215 U.S. 190 · 1909
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 26 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 158 later decisions (54 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1986 · most notably Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947)
30 federal appellate · 26 district · 16 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 Wilson · Ex Parte in the Matter of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. William Dennison Governor and Executive Authority of the State of Ohio · Dollar Savings Bank v. United States · Hepner v. United States · United States v. Keitel
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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule which excludes other remedies where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy for its enforcement rests upon the presumed prohibition of all other remedies. If such prohibition is intended to reach the Government in the use of known rights and remedies, the language must be clear and specific to that effect.” 215 U.S. 190 , 197, 30 S.Ct. 35 , 36.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““See. 4. That it shall be a misdemeanor for' any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation or in any way to assist or encourage the importation or migration of any contract laborer or contract laborers into the United States, unless such contract laborer or contract laborers are exempted under the terms of the last two provisos contained in section two of this act. “Sec. 5. That for every violation of any of the provisions of section four of this'act the persons, partnership, company, or corporation violating the same, by knowingly assisting, encouraging, or soliciting the .migration or importation of any contract laborer into the United States, shall forfeit and pay for every such offense the sum of one thousand dollars, which may be sued for and recovered by the United States, or by any person who shall first bring bis action therefor in his own name and for his own benefit, including any such alien thus promised labor or service of any kind as aforesaid, as debts of like amount are now recovered in the courts of the United States; and separate suits may be brought for each alien thus promised labor or service of any kind as aforesaid. And it shall be the duty of the district attorney of the proper district to prosecute every such suit when brought by the United States.””
3 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.