Manley v. State of Georgia’s Empirical Analysis
279 U.S. 1 · 1929
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 15 district · 131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 272 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1998 · most notably Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
61 federal appellate · 15 district · 131 state decisions — followed in 22 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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · United States v. Cruikshank · Mobile Jackson Kansas City Railroad Company v. J a Turnipseed · Alonzo Bailey v. State of Alabama · Cline v. Frink Dairy Co.
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 272 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repeal it violates the due process clause of the [Fourteenth] [A]mendment.'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““State legislation declaring that proof of one fact or a group of facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of the main or ultimate fact in issue is valid if there is a rational connection between what is proved and what is to be inferred. If the presumption is not unreasonable and is not made conclusive of the rights of the person against whom raised, it does not constitute a denial of due process of law. (Citing case.) A prima facie presumption casts upon the person against whom it is applied the duty of going forward with his evidence on the particular point to which the presumption relates. A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates to deny a fair opportunity to repel it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Citing case.) Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues involving life, liberty or property. ‘It is not within the province of a legislature to declare an individual guilty or presumptively guilty of a crime.’ (Citing case.)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Childress““Every insolvency of a bank shall be deemed fraudulent, and the president and directors shall be severally punished by imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary for not less than one (1) year nor more than ten (10) years; provided that the defendant in a: case arising under this section, may repel the presumption of fraud by showing that the affairs of the bank have been fairly and legally administered, and generally, with the same care and diligence that agents receiving a commission for their services are required and bound by law to observe; and upon such showing the jury shall acquit the prisoner.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stone v. State
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.