Blockburger v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
284 U.S. 299 · 1932
Citation profile
5,301 federal appellate · 613 district · 10,908 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19,602 later decisions (161 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Blakely v. Washington (2004), Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998)
5,301 federal appellate · 613 district · 10,908 state decisions — followed in 50 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 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gavieres v. United States · Albrecht v. United States · Badders v. United States · United States v. Daugherty
Cited together with Brown v. Ohio · Albernaz v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Gore v. United States · Missouri v. Hunter
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 19,602 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”
1,245 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * Under the circumstances, so far as disclosed, it is true that the imposition of the full penalty of fine and imprisonment upon each count seems unduly severe; but there may have been other facts and circumstances before the trial court properly influencing the extent of the punishment. In any event, the matter was one for that court, with whose judgment there is no warrant for interference on our part.” 2”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The second count charged a sale on a specified day of ten grains of the drug not in or from the original stamped package; the third count charged a sale on the following day of eight grains of the drug not in or from the original stamped package; the fifth count charged the latter sale also as having been made not in pursuance of a written order of the purchaser as required by the statute.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cook v. State · State v. Lewis
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.