Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 U.S. 323 - Corrigan v. Buckley

Corrigan v. Buckley’s Empirical Analysis

271 U.S. 323 · 1926

Citation profile

245
cited by 245 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 23 district · 88 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 245 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968)

70 federal appellate · 23 district · 88 state decisions — followed in 23 states

9401926193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Strauder v. West Virginia · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Civil Rights Cases · Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.

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

  1. “The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment * * * is prohibitory in its character, and prohibitory upon the states. * * * It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the amendment. * * * [U]ntil some State law has been passed, or some State action through its officers or agents has been taken * * * no legislation of the United States under said amendment, nor any proceeding under such legislation, can be called into activity. * * * The wrongful act of an individual, unsupported by any [State] authority, is simply a private wrong, or a crime of that individual”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “it is obvious * * * that while they (present sections 1981, 1982 and 1983, Title 42, U.S.C.) provide, inter alia, that all persons and citizens shall have equal right with white citizens to make contracts and acquire property they, like the Constitutional Amendment under whose sanction they were enacted, do not in any manner prohibit or invalidate contracts entered into by private individuals in respect to the control and disposition of their own property.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment `have reference to State action exclusively, and not to any action of private individuals.' * * * `Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the Amendment.' Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 11 [ 3 S.Ct. 18, 21 , 27 L.Ed. 835 ].”
    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.