Charles Carlesi v. People of the State of New York’s Empirical Analysis
233 U.S. 51 · 1914
Citation profile
73 federal appellate · 9 district · 179 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 297 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Gryger v. Burke (1948), United States ex rel. Hetenyi v. Wilkins (1965)
73 federal appellate · 9 district · 179 state decisions — followed in 28 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 Brown v. Walker · James Graham v. State of West Virginia · Pargoud v. United States · John McDonald v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · United States v. Kirby
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 297 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It may not be questioned that the States are without right directly or indirectly to restrict the national government in the exertion of its legitimate powers. It is therefore to be conceded that if the act of the state in taking into consideration a prior conviction of an offense committed by the same offender against the laws of the United States despite a pardon was in any just sense a punishment for such prior crime, that the act of the state would be void because destroying or circumscribing the effect of the pardon granted under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the (state) statute directed the consideration of the prior conviction despite the pardon,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“233 U.S. at 57, 34 S.Ct. at 577. The Court's statement that we must not be understood as in the slightest degree intimating that a pardon would operate to limit the power of the United States in punishing crimes against its authority to provide for taking into consideration past offenses committed by the accused . . . even although for such past offenses there had been a pardon granted was explicitly limited to consideration of a pardoned offense”
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.