Pickett v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
216 U.S. 456 · 1910
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. (1933), Billings v. United States (1914)
74 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 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 Rector Etc of Holy Trinity Church v. United States · Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's · Kan-Gi-Shun-Ca · Lau Ow Bew v. United States · United States v. Corbett
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No construction should be adopted, if another equally admissible can be given, which would result in what might be called a judicial chasm.”). Justice Scalia once aptly commented that Congress”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That all prosecutions for crimes or offenses hereafter committed in either of said judicial districts as hereby constituted shall be cognizable within the district in which committed, and all prosecutions for crimes or offenses committed before the passage of this Act in which indictments have not yet been found or proceedings instituted shall be cognizable within the judicial district as hereby constituted in which such crimes or offenses were committed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The averments of the indictment make it plain that the crime charged was committed within . . . Indian country, not within any State [Oklahoma Indian Territory before statehood] . . . [and] also averred that the plaintiff in error was . . . not an Indian, and the person slain . . . not an Indian, the exceptions made by [the predecessor of § 1152] do not apply.”
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.