Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 U.S. 447 - Charlton v. Kelly

Charlton v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

229 U.S. 447 · 1913

Citation profile

612
cited by 612 later decisions
27
cited 27 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

246 federal appellate · 53 district · 65 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 612 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Collins v. Loisel (1922)

246 federal appellate · 53 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 19 states

1120191319201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Edye v. Robertson · Davidson v. New Orleans · United States v. Rauscher · Nishimura Ekiu v. United States

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

  1. “If the evidence not admitted by the magistrate was only for the purpose of showing present insanity by reason of which the accused was not capable of defending the charge of crime, it is an objection which should be taken before or at the time of his trial for the crime. If it was offered to show insanity at the time of the commission of the crime, it was obviously a defense which should be heard at the time of his trial, or by a preliminary hearing in the jurisdiction of the crime, if so provided for by its laws.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If the attitude of Italy was, as contended, a violation of the obligation of the treaty, which, in international law, would have justified the United States in denouncing the treaty as no longer obligatory, it did not automatically have that effect. If the United States elected not to declare its abrogation, or come to a rupture, the treaty would remain in force. It was only voidable, not void; and if the United States should prefer, it might waive any breach which, in its judgment, had occurred, and conform to its own obligation as if there had been no such breach.” 229 U.S. at 473 , 33 S.Ct. at 954 . Citing 1 Kent, Com. p. 175; Vattel, Nations, 452; Grotius, bk. 3, chap. 20, ¶ 38; 5 Moore’s International Law Digest, p. 366. 8”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A construction of a treaty by the political department of the government, while not conclusive upon a court called upon to construe such a treaty in a matter involving personal rights, is nevertheless of much weight. [Quoting Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447 , 468, 33 S.Ct. 945 , 952, 57 L.Ed. 1274 (1913).]”
    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.