United States v. Birdsall’s Empirical Analysis
233 U.S. 223 · 1914
Citation profile
218 federal appellate · 35 district · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 455 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably United States v. Classic (1941), Barr v. Matteo (1959)
218 federal appellate · 35 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Moses Haas v. William Henkel · Crawford v. United States · United States v. James a Patten · John Benson v. William Henkel
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 455 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every action that is within the range of official duty comes within the purview of these sections. There was thus a legislative basis (United States v. George, 228 U. S. 14 , 22, 33 S.Ct. 412 , 57 L.Ed. 712 ) for the charge in the present cases, if the action is sought to be influenced was- official action. To constitute it official action, it was not necessary that it should be prescribed by statute; it was sufficient that it was governed by a lawful requirement of the Department under whose authority the officer was acting. (Rev.Stat., § 161 [ 5 U.S.C.A. § 22 ]; Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1 , 12, 25 S.Ct. 569 , 49 L.Ed. 919 , 922; Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 , 480, 30 S.Ct. 249 , 54 L.Ed. 569 , 577, 17 Ann.Cas. 1112). Nor was it necessary that the requirement should be prescribed by a written rule or regulation. It might also be found in an established usage which constituted the common law of the Department and fixed the duties of those engaged in its activities. United States v. Macdaniel, 7 Pet. 1 , 14, 8 L.Ed. 587 , 592. In numerous instances, duties not completely defined by written rules are clearly established by settled practice, and action taken in the course of their performance must be regarded as within the provisions of the above-mentioned statutes against bribery. Haas v. Henkel, supra.””
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hoever, being an officer of the United States, or a person acting for or on behalf of the United States, in any official capacity, under or by virtue of the authority of any department or office of the government thereof, [accepts money] with the intent to have his decision or action on any question, matter, cause, or proceeding which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before him in his official capacity, or m his place of trust or profit, influenced thereby, [shall be punished as stated], (emphasis added)”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“were charged with the duty of informing and advising the Commissioner of Indian Affairs”
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.