McSurely v. Ratliff’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 1985 · most notably Alan McSurely v. John L. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County, Kentucky (1982), Dale B. Menard v. John N. Mitchell and John Edgar Hoover (1970)
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2385 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 50 U.S.C. § 781 · 50 U.S.C. § 841 (Communist Control Act of 1954)
Relies on Hines v. Davidowitz · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Dennis v. United States · Douglas v. City of Jeannette · Pennsylvania v. Nelson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he conclusion is inescapable that the criminal prosecutions were instituted, at least in part, in order to stop plaintiffs' organizing activities in Pike County.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Kentucky’s sedition law was passed in 1920 in the aftermath of World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. The law was amended slightly in 1922, otherwise it has remained unchanged through the years. As would be expected, the statute is broad and comprehensive. It was good politics to be against Communism. The Governor signed the bill but was fearful that it drew too much water. He publicly stated that it ‘goes far afield and far beyond syndicalism and sedition.’ He thought the courts would ‘take out of this law the sections which make it dangerous’, and concluded with this statement: ‘Those who seek its [government] overthrow by force or violence, or those who counsel resistance to its laws by unlawful means must be destroyed, but the right of free speech is the blood-bought heritage of every citizen: it is the palladium of our liberties, and it must and shall be preserved.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““KRS 432.040 — Any person who by word or writing advocates, suggests or teaches the duty, necessity, propriety or expediency of criminal syndicalism or sedition, or who prints, publishes, edits, issues or knowingly circulates, sells, distributes, publicly displays or has in his possession for the purpose of publication or circulation any written or printed matter in any form advocating, suggesting or teaching criminal syndicalism or sedition, or who organizes or helps to organize, or becomes a member of or voluntarily assembles with any society or assemblage of persons that teaches, advocates or suggests the doctrine of criminal syndicalism or sedition shall be confined in the penitentiary for not more than twenty-one years, or fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both.””
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.