Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
301 U.S. 308 · 1937
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 13 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 255 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Buckley v. Valeo (1976), Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond (1990)
78 federal appellate · 13 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · United States v. Butler · United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. · Posadas v. National City Bank · Edye v. Robertson
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 255 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It means simply that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a restriction upon the disbursing authority of the Executive [Branch],”
3 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.