Martin v. Mott’s Empirical Analysis
25 U.S. 19 · 1827
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 39 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 349 later decisions (75 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
84 federal appellate · 39 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Houston v. Moore
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 349 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘Whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, it is sound rule of construction that, the statute constitutes him sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ Supposing these claims applicable to the. court-martial in •question, it is very clear that the act is merely directory to the •officer appointing the court, and that his decision as to the number' which can be convened without manifest injury to the service, being a matter submitted to his sound discretion, must be conclusive.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The constitution declares, that congress shall have power ‘to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;’ * * * In pursuance of this authority, the act of 1795 has provided, ‘that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his order for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper.’ * * * “The power thus confided by congress to the president, is, doubtless, of a very high and delicate nature. A free people are naturally jealous of the exercise of military power; and the power to call the militia into actual service, is certainly felt to be one of no ordinary magnitude. But it is not a power which can be executed without a correspondent responsibility. It is, in its terms, a limited power, confined to cases of actual invasion, or of imminent danger of invasion. If it be a limited power, the question arises, by whom is the exigency to be judged of and decided? Is the president the sole and exclusive judge whether the exigency has arisen, or is it to be considered as an open question, upon which every officer to whom the orders of the president are a”
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.