Holt v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
218 U.S. 245 · 1910
Citation profile
1,003 federal appellate · 124 district · 822 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,341 later decisions (107 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably In the Matter of Samuel Winship (1970), United States v. Wade (1967)
1,003 federal appellate · 124 district · 822 state decisions — followed in 49 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 Reynolds v. States · Mattox v. United States · Agnew v. United States · Albert Adams v. People of the State of New York
Cited together with Schmerber v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Gilbert v. California · Costello v. United States · Irvin v. Dowd
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 2,341 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material. The objection in principle would forbid a jury to look at a prisoner and compare his features with a photograph in proof.””
47 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the mere opportunity for prejudice or corruption is to raise a presumption that they exist, it will be hard to maintain jury trial under the conditions of the present day.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Without considering how far, if at all, the court is warranted in inquiring into the nature of the evidence on which a grand jury has acted, and how far, in case of such an inquiry, the discretion of the trial court is subject to review (United States v. Rosenburgh, 7 Wall. 580, 19 L.Ed. 263) it is enough to say that there is no reason for reviewing it here. All that the affidavit disclosed was that evidence in its nature competent, but made incompetent by circumstances, had been considered along with the rest. The abuses of criminal practice would be enhanced if indictments could be upset on such a ground.”
5 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.