James v. Dravo Contracting Co.’s Empirical Analysis
302 U.S. 134 · 1937
Citation profile
214 federal appellate · 98 district · 364 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,076 later decisions (180 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2026 · most notably Montana v. United States (1979), Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960)
214 federal appellate · 98 district · 364 state decisions — followed in 43 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Simpson v. Shepard · Shively v. Bowlby · Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
Cited together with Alabama v. King & Boozer · Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of Washington · Graves v. People of State of New York O'Keefe · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe
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 1,076 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a remote, if any, influence upon the exercise of the functions of [the Bank].”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the District of Columbia], ... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘ ‘ Clause 17 contains no express stipulation that the consent of the State must be without reservations. We think that such a stipulation should not be implied. We are unable to reconcile such an implication with the freedom of the State and its admitted authority to refuse or qualify cessions of jurisdiction when purchases have been made without consent or property has been acquired by condemnation. In the present case the reservation by West Virginia of concurrent jurisdiction did not operate to deprive the United States of the enjoyment of the property for the purposes for which it was acquired, and we are of the opinion that the reservation was applicable and effective.””
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.