Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 U.S. 246 - United States v. Morris

United States v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

23 U.S. 246 · 1825

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
April 2001
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2001 · most notably Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (1974), Brown v. Walker (1896)

33 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 state decisions

1201825183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Welch v. Mandeville · Andrews v. Beecker · Lachomette v. Thomas · Jones v. Shore's Executor

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

  1. “It has .been decided “that the Secretary had authority, under that act, to remit a 'forfeiture, at any time before or after a final decree or judgment, until the money was actually paid over to the collector for distribution.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “that all writs of execution upon any judgments obtained for the use of the United States, in any of the courts of the United States, in one state, may run and be executed in any other state, but shall be issued from, and made returnable to, the court where the judgment was obtained.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The discretionary power exercised by the court below, in this instance [appointing counsel], was essential to the administration of justice, whenever the district-attorney refuses to act, or is interested, or in case of his death.”
    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.