United States v. Paul Beatty’s Empirical Analysis
232 U.S. 463 · 1914
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1997 · most notably United State v. Morgan (1954), Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States (1923)
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions
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
reviewedBeatty v. United States (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on McClellan v. Carland · Messenger v. Anderson · Lau Ow Bew v. United States · Ex Parte Chetwood · Forsyth v. City of Hammond
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No doubt, this provision * , * affords ample authority for using the writ as an auxiliary process and, whenever there is imperative necessity therefor, as a means of correcting excesses of jurisdiction, of giving full force and effect to existing appellate authority, and of furthering justice in other kindred ways. American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville Co., 148 U. S. 372 , 380 [ 13 S. Ct. 758 , 37 L. Ed. 486 ]; In re Chetwood, 165 U. S. 443 , 462 [ 17 S. Ct. 385 , 41 L. Ed. 782 ]; Whitney v. Dick, 202 U. S. 132 [ 26 S. Ct. 584 , 50 L. Ed. 963 ]; McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268 [ 30 S. Ct. 501 , 54 L. Ed. 762 ]. But it may not be used Tinder this provision as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error to correct mere errors committed in the exercise of a lawful jurisdiction. American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville Co., supra; In re Tampa Suburban R. R. Co., 168 U. S. 583 [ 18 S. Ct. 177 , 42 L. Ed. 589 ]; United States v. Dickinson, 213 U. S. 92 , 102 [ 29 S. Ct. 485 , 53 L. Ed. 711 ].””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That in every case in which the Secretary of the Treasury or any other officer of the Government has been, or hereafter shall be, authorized to procure real estate for the erection of a public building or for other public uses he shall be, and hereby is, authorized to acquire the same for the United States by condemnation, under judicial process, whenever in his opinion it is necessary or advantageous to the Government to do so, . -. .”
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.