United States v. Benz’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 304 · 1931
Citation profile
423 federal appellate · 40 district · 427 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,031 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), Missouri v. Hunter (1983)
423 federal appellate · 40 district · 427 state decisions — followed in 38 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 Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ex parte Lange · United States v. Murray · Goddard v. Ordway · Basset v. United States
Cited together with Ex parte Lange · North Carolina v. Pearce · Bozza v. United States · United States v. DiFrancesco · Green v. United States
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 1,031 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]s a general practice, the sentence, when imposed by a court of record, is within the power of the court during the session in which it is entered, and may be amended at any time during such session, provided a punishment already partly suffered be not increased.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We find nothing in the suggestion that the action of the district court in reducing the punishment after the prisoner has served a part of the imprisonment originally imposed was a usurpation of the pardoning power of the executive. The judicial power and the executive power over sentences are readily distinguishable. To render judgment is a judicial function. To carry the judgment into effect is an executive function. To cut short a sentence by an act of clemency is an exercise of executive power which abridges the enforcement of the judgment, but does not alter it qua judgment. To reduce a sentence by amendment alters the terms of the judgment itself and is a judicial act as much as the imposition of the sentence in the first place.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n the present case the power of the court was exercised to mitigate the punishment, not to increase it”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thomas v. State · State v. Wheeler
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.