Miles v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis
268 U.S. 501 · 1925
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 6 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Smith v. Allwright (1944), Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk (1962)
29 federal appellate · 6 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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 Hill v. Wallace · Child Labor Tax Case · Evans v. Gore · Benedict v. Ratner
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The words and history of the clause [article III, section 1] indicate that the purpose was to impose upon Congress the duty definitely to declare what sum shall be received by each judge out of the public funds and the times for payment. When this duty has been complied with the amount specified becomes the compensation which is protected against diminution during his continuance in office. * * * * * * The power of Congress definitely to fix the compensation to be received at stated intervals by judges thereafter appointed is clear. * * *.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior 'Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for thier Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““These considerations make it very plain, as we think, that the primary purpose of the prohibition against diminution was not to benefit the judges, but, like the clause in respect to tenure, to attract good and competent men to the bench and to promote that independence of action and judgment which is essential to the maintenance of the guaranties, limitations, and pervading principles of the Constitution and to the administration of justice without respect to persons and with equal concern for the poor and the rich. Such being its purpose, it is to be construed, not as a private grant, but as a limitation imposed in the public interest. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. du Pont
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.