Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 U.S. 183 - United States v. Jackson

United States v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

280 U.S. 183 · 1930

Citation profile

350
cited by 350 later decisions
23
cited 23 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

138 federal appellate · 51 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 350 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016 · most notably New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States (1932), Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co. (1947)

138 federal appellate · 51 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 10 states

890193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Kagama · Heckman v. United States · Tiger v. Western Investment Co. · United States v. Midwest Oil 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 350 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “great weight is properly to be given to the construction consistently given to a statute by the Executive Department charged with its administration.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe · State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana
  2. “with its various amendments, constitute part of a single system evidencing a continuous purpose on the part of the Congress. The statutes are in pari materia, and must be so construed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Bryan L. Stevens and Bryan L. Stevens as Surviving Spouse of Alma Stevens, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Bryan L. Stevens and Bryan L. Stevens as Surviving Spouse of Alma Stevens, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Stevens v. Commissioner
  3. “is not to be overturned unless clearly wrong * * *.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Bryan L. Stevens and Bryan L. Stevens as Surviving Spouse of Alma Stevens, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Bryan L. Stevens and Bryan L. Stevens as Surviving Spouse of Alma Stevens, Deceased v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · Stevens v. Commissioner

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.