Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 294 U.S. 435 - Miller v. United States

Miller v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

294 U.S. 435 · 1935

Citation profile

496
cited by 496 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

282 federal appellate · 29 district · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 496 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2015 · most notably Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital (1988), United States v. Atkinson (1936)

282 federal appellate · 29 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 18 states

1540193519401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedMiller v. United States (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Grimaud · Lumbra v. United States · Chew Heong v. United States · Morrill v. Jones

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 496 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is invalid because not within the authority conferred by the statute upon the Director (or his successor, the Administrator) to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the act. It is not, in the sense of the statute, a regulation at all, but legislation. * * * The only authority conferred, or which could be conferred, by the statute is to make regulations to carry out the purposes of the act — not to amend it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to make such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with the provisions of the act, as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out its purposes.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] statute cannot be construed to operate retrospectively unless the legislative intention to that effect unequivocally appears”
    2 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.