Biddle v. Perovich’s Empirical Analysis
274 U.S. 480 · 1927
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 6 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2025 · most notably United States v. Rosenberg (1952), Schick v. Reed (1974)
34 federal appellate · 6 district · 68 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ex parte Grossman · Ross v. McIntyre · Joe Malloy v. State of South Carolina · Perovich v. United States · United States v. George Wilson
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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hempel v. Weedin · Dennis v. Terris““ * * * The Constitution provides that the President ‘shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in eases of impeachment.’ The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment. * '* * “Such being the case the inquiry arises as to the effect and operation of a pardon, and on this point all tho authorities concur. A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity. “There is only this limitation to its operation : It does not restore offices forfeited, or property or interests vested in others in consequence of the conviction and judgment. * if “The effect of this pardon is to relieve the petitioner from all penalties and disabilities attached to the offense of treason, commit”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hempel v. Weedin“the reasoning ... is not to be extended to the present case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Shin
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.