Murphy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
272 U.S. 630 · 1926
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 45 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 200 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2009 · most notably Yates v. United States (1957), Helvering v. Mitchell (1938)
52 federal appellate · 45 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 13 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 Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. One Ford Coupe Automobile · Stone v. United States · St Louis Cotton Compress Co v. State of Arkansas · Hodge v. Muscatine County
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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“■ . . For although the parties to the two cases are the same, the judgment in the criminal case does not make the issues in the present one res judicata, as is sufficiently explained in Stone v. United States, 167 U. S. 178 and Chantangco v. Abaroa, 218 U. S. 476 . The Government may have failed to prove the appellants guilty and yet may have been and may be able to prove that a nuisance exists in the place. Our answer to the question certified agrees with the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Kansas in a carefully considered case, State v. Roach, 83 Kan. 606 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Dubose““Is a judgment of acquittal on a criminal charge of maintaining a common nuisance in violation of section 21, title II of the National Prohibition Act a bar to a civil action brought under section 22, title II of the Act against the same parties to abate the same alleged nuisance?””
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.