Commonwealth v. Nickerson’s Empirical Analysis
1920
Citation profile
8 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1989 · most notably Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois (1959), Vigliotti v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1922)
8 district · 80 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 Gibbons v. Ogden · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · United States v. Cruikshank · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. “Sec. 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Legislation by the states need not be identical with that of Congress. It cannot authorize that which is forbidden by Congress but the states need not denounce every act committed within their boundaries which is included in the inhibition of the Volstead Act nor provide the same penalty therefor: It is conceivable also that a state may forbid under penalty acts not prohibited by the act of Congress. The concurrent powers of the states may differ in means adopted provided they are directed to the enforcement of the amendment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The words ‘concurrent power’ in that section do not mean joint power, or require that legislation thereunder by Congress, to he effective, shall he approved or sanctioned by the several states or any of them; nor do they mean that the power to enforce is divided between Congress and the several states along the lines which separate or distinguish foreign and interstate commerce from intrastate affairs. “The power confided by Congress by that section, while not exclusive, is territorially co-extensive with the prohibition of the first section, embraces manufacture and other intrastate transactions as well as importation, exportation, and interstate traffic, and is in no wise dependent on or affected by action or inaction on the part of the several states or any of them.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.