Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 U.S. 642 - William Garland v. State of Washington

William Garland v. State of Washington’s Empirical Analysis

232 U.S. 642 · 1914

Citation profile

482
cited by 482 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
34
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

166 federal appellate · 15 district · 229 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 482 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Frank v. Mangum (1915), Badders v. United States (1916)

166 federal appellate · 15 district · 229 state decisions — followed in 34 states

730191419201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 United States v. Cruikshank · Hopt v. People of the Territory of Utah · Crain v. United States · Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Humes

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

  1. “Due process of law, this court had held, does not require the state to adopt any particular form of procedure, so long as it appears that the accused has had sufficient notice of the [proceedings] and an adequate opportunity to [be heard].”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “technical enforcement of formal rights in criminal procedure . . . is no longer required in the prosecution of offenses under present systems of law.”
    2 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.