James Graham v. State of West Virginia’s Empirical Analysis
224 U.S. 616 · 1912
Citation profile
234 federal appellate · 21 district · 581 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,007 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000), Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998)
234 federal appellate · 21 district · 581 state decisions — followed in 44 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 Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Ex parte Lange · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis
Cited together with John McDonald v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Oyler v. Boles · Moore v. State of Missouri · Gryger v. Burke · Chandler v. Warden Fretag
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 1,007 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“necessary to bring the case within the statute.”
37 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney when he has knowledge of former sentence or sentences to the penitentiary of any person convicted of an offense punishable by confinement in the penitentiary to give information thereof to the court immediately upon conviction and before sentence. Said court shall, before expiration of the term at which such person was convicted, cause such person or prisoner to be brought before it, and upon an information filed by the prosecuting attorney, setting forth the records of conviction and sentence, or convictions and sentences, as the case may be, and alleging the identity of the prisoner with the person named in each, shall require the prisoner to say whether he is the same person or not. If he says he is not, or remains silent, his plea, or the fact of his silence, shall be entered of record, and a jury shall be impanelled to inquire whether the prisoner is the same person mentioned in the several records. If the jury finds that he is not the same person, he shall be sentenced upon the charge of which he was convicted as provided by law; but if they find that he is the same, or after being duly cautioned if he acknowledges in open court that he is the same person, the court shall sentence him to such further confinement as is prescribed by section eighteen [§ 61-11-18] of this article on a second or third conviction as the case may be.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that cruel and unusual punishment [had] been inflicted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rummel v. Estelle
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.