United States v. Daugherty’s Empirical Analysis
269 U.S. 360 · 1926
Citation profile
430 federal appellate · 16 district · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 633 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Blockburger v. United States (1932), Prince v. United States (1957)
430 federal appellate · 16 district · 94 state decisions — followed in 23 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Hill v. Wallace · Hammer v. Dagenhart · Child Labor Tax Case · United States v. Doremus
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 633 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sentences in criminal cases should reveal with fair certainty the intent of the court and exclude any serious misapprehensions by those who must execute them. The elimination of every possible doubt cannot be demanded.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ The constitutionality of the Anti-Narcotic Act, touching which this Court so sharply divided in United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86 , was not raised below and has not been again considered. The doctrine approved in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251 ; Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20 ; Hill v. Wallace, 259 U. S. 44 , 67; and Linder v. United States, 268 U. S. 5 , may necessitate a review of that question if hereafter properly presented.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is by the court considered and adjudged that sa-id defendant is guilty of the crime aforesaid, and that as punishment therefor said defendant be confined in the United States penitentiary situated at Leavenworth, Kansas, for the term of five (5) years on each of said three counts, and until he shall have been discharged from said penitentiary by due course of law. Said term of imprisonment to run consecutively and not concurrently.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boyd v. Archer
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.