Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 272 U.S. 581 - Lambert v. Yellowley

Lambert v. Yellowley’s Empirical Analysis

272 U.S. 581 · 1926

Citation profile

153
cited by 153 later decisions
21
cited 21 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 15 district · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 153 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Don Stenberg Attorney General of Nebraskas v. Leroy Carhart (2000), Milliken v. United States (1931)

31 federal appellate · 15 district · 62 state decisions — followed in 16 states

33019261930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedLambert v. Yellowley (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Joseph Lochner v. People of the State of New York · Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Barbier v. Connolly · Dent v. State of West Virginia

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

  1. “there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the states.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate . . . to the power of Congress to make laws necessary and proper . . . . High medical authority being in conflict as to the medicinal value of spirituous and vinous liquors taken as a beverage, it would, indeed, be strange if Congress lacked the power to determine that the necessities of the liquor problem require a limitation of permissible prescriptions. . . .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “practicing physicians differ about the value of malt, vinous, and spirituous liquors for medicinal purposes, [and] that the preponderating opinion is against their use for such purposes,”
    2 later decisions 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.