Sterling v. Constantin’s Empirical Analysis
287 U.S. 378 · 1932
Citation profile
255 federal appellate · 76 district · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 763 later decisions (107 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974), Baker v. Carr (1962)
255 federal appellate · 76 district · 74 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · William Truax v. Mike Raich · Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Cohens v. Virginia
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 763 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by [the] Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression.””
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Instead of affording them protection in the lawful exercise of their rights as determined by the courts [the Governor] sought, by his executive orders, to make that exercise impossible. In the place of judicial procedure, available in the courts which were open and functioning, he set up his executive commands which brooked neither delay nor appeal. In particular, to the process of the Federal court actually and properly engaged in examining and protecting an asserted federal right, the Governor interposed the obstruction of his will, subverting the federal authority. The assertion that such action can be taken as conclusive proof of its own necessity and must be accepted as in itself due process of law has no support in the decisions of this Court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hat are the allowable limits of military discretion, and whether or not they have been overstepped in a particular case . . .”
4 later decisions 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.