Nixon v. Herndon’s Empirical Analysis
273 U.S. 536 · 1927
Citation profile
176 federal appellate · 60 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 647 later decisions (163 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970), Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971)
176 federal appellate · 60 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 18 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.
Relationships
Relies on Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Cannon v. United States · Strauder v. West Virginia · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Ex parte 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 647 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“objection that the subject-matter of the suit is political is little more than a play upon words. Of course the petition concerns political action but it alleges and seeks to recover for private damage. That private damage may be caused by such political action and may be recovered for in a suit at law hardly has been doubted for over two hundred years, . . . .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coleman v. Miller · Atlee v. Laird“in no event shall a negro be eligible to participate in a democratic party primary election [held in that State],”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . We find it unnecessary to consider the Fifteenth Amendment, because it seems to us hard to imagine a more direct and obvious infringement of the Fourteenth. That Amendment, while it applies to all, was passed, as we know, with a special intent to protect the blacks from discrimination against them. . . . The statute . . . assumes to forbid Negroes to take part in a primary election . . . discriminating against them by the distinction of color alone. States may do a good deal of classifying that it is difficult to believe rational, but there are limits, and it is too clear for extended argument that color cannot be made the basis of a statutory classification affecting the right set up in this case.” (pp. 540-541.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. Anderson
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.