Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 U.S. 135 - McGrain v. Daugherty

McGrain v. Daugherty’s Empirical Analysis

273 U.S. 135 · 1927

Citation profile

745
cited by 745 later decisions
119
cited 119 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

222 federal appellate · 102 district · 149 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 745 later decisions (119 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Aguilar v. Texas (1964), Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

222 federal appellate · 102 district · 149 state decisions — followed in 24 states

131019271930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Boyd v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Edwin Hale v. William Henkel · Blair v. United States

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

  1. “(a) legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We come now to the question whether it sufficiently appears that the purpose for which the witness’s testimony was sought was to obtain information in aid of the legislative function..... “We are of opinion .... that it sufficiently appears .... that the object of the investigation____was to obtain information for legislative purposes .... “The only legitimate object the Senate could have in ordering the investigation was to aid it in legislating. . . . “We think the resolution and proceedings give no warrant for thinking the Senate was attempting or intending to try the Attorney General at its bar or before its committee for any crime or wrongdoing.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'general' power to inquire into private affairs.”
    3 later decisions 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.