Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 U.S. 123 - Jordan v. Tashiro

Jordan v. Tashiro’s Empirical Analysis

278 U.S. 123 · 1928

Citation profile

143
cited by 143 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
May 2017
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 8 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 143 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (1944), United States v. Pink (1942)

48 federal appellate · 8 district · 21 state decisions

3001928193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Gibbons v. Ogden · Terrace v. Thompson · Red Cross Line v. Atlantic Fruit Co. · Wititaker Wright v. William Henkel · Ross v. McIntyre

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

  1. “was limited to the purchase, sale, or exchange of goods and commodities. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating: While in a narrow and restricted sense the terms”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Article I. The citizens or subjects of each of the High Contracting Parties shall have liberty to enter, travel and reside in the territories of the other to carry on trade, wholesale and retail, to own or lease and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses and shops, to employ agents of their choice, to lease land for residential and commercial purposes, and generally to do anything incident to or necessary for trade upon the same terms as native citizens’or subjects, submitting themselves to the laws and regulations there established. * * * “The citizens or subjects of each of the High Contracting Parties shall receive, in the territories of the other, the most constant protection and security for their persons and property, and shall enjoy in this respect the same rights and privileges as are or may be granted to native citizens or subjects, on their submitting themselves to the conditions imposed upon the native citizens or subjects. * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Giving to the terms of the treaty, as we are required by accepted principles, a liberal ■rather than a narrow interpretation, we think, as the state court held, that the terms ‘trade* and ‘commerce,’ when used in: conjunction with each other and with the grant of authority to lease land for ‘commercial purposes’ are to be given a broader significance than that pressed upon us, and are sufficient to include the operation of a hospital as a business undertaking; that this is a commercial purpose for which the treaty authorizes Japanese subjects to lease lands.””
    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.