Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 221 U.S. 418 - Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company

Samuel Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

935
cited by 935 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
50
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 62 district · 554 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 935 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Turner v. Rogers (2011), Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering (1921)

29 federal appellate · 62 district · 554 state decisions — followed in 50 states

1360191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Boyd v. United States · United States v. Cruikshank · Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. · Deitrich Loewe et al. v. Martin Lawlor et al. · Richmond v. Irons

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

  1. ““ * * * It is not the fact of punishment, but rather its character and purpose, that often serve to distinguish between the two classes of cases. * * * ””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If a party can make himself a .judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own act of disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls ‘the judicial power of the United States’ would be a mere mockery.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““But, as the act of disobedience consisted not in refusing to do what had been ordered, but in doing what had been prohibited by the injunction, there could be no coercive imprisonment, and therefore the only relief, if any, which ‘the nature of petitioner’s case’ admitted, was the imposition of a fine, payable to the Buck’s Stove & Range Company.” (p. 449.)”
    4 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.