Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 234 U.S. 70 - Ex parte Roe

Ex parte Roe’s Empirical Analysis

234 U.S. 70 · 1914

Citation profile

172
cited by 172 later decisions
30
cited 30 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
May 2011
most recently cited

98 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 172 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n (1943), Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland (1953)

98 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions

49019141920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Myers · Ex parte Harding · American Construction Co v. Jacksonville T K W Ry Co Same · Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McCabe · Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Fitzgerald

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

  1. “The accustomed office of a writ of mandamus, when directed to a judicial officer, is to compel an exercise of existing jurisdiction, but not to control his decision. It does not lie to compel a reversal of a decision, either interlocutory or final, made in the exercise of a lawful jurisdiction, especially where in regular course the decision may be reviewed upon a writ of error or an appeal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Whether the ruling was right or wrong, it was a judicial act, done in the exercise of a jurisdiction conferred by law, and even if erroneous, was not void or open to collateral attach, but only subject to correction in an appropriate appellate proceeding. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. McCabe, 213 U. S. 207 ; In re Metropolitan Trust Co., 218 U. S. 312 . * * *” [Emphasis supplied.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Wo are not here at liberty to consider the merits of the question involved in the District Court’s ruling.””
    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.