United States v. Quincy’s Empirical Analysis
31 U.S. 445 · 1832
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 19 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2014 · most notably United States v. Mandujano (1974), The Three Friends (1897)
15 federal appellate · 19 district · 6 state decisions
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 United States v. Wiltberger · United States v. Sheldon · Unites States v. Guinet
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘‘Section 5283 is designed in general to secure our neutrality between foreign belligerent powers. But there can be no obligation of neutrality except towards some recognized state or power de jure or de facto. Neutrality presupposes two belligerents at least, and, as respects any recognition of belligerency, — i. e. of belligerent rights, — the judiciary must follow the executive. To fall within 1he statute, the vessel must he intended to be employed in the service of one foreign prince, state, colony, district, or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of another with which the United States are at peace. The United Stales can hardly be said to be at peace in the sense of the statute, with a faction which they are unwilling to recognize as a government; nor could the cruising or committing of hostilities against such a mere faction well be said to be committing hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of a district or people, within tire meaning of the statute. So, on the other hand, a vessel, in entering the service of the opposite faction of Ilippolyte, could hardly be said to enter the service of a foreign prince or state, or of a colony, district, or people, unless our government had recognized Hippolyte’s faction as at least constituting a belligerent, which it does not appear to have done.-’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The offence consists principally in tbe intention with which the preparations were made. These preparations, according to the very terms of the act, must be made within the limits of the United States; and it is equally necessary that the intention with respect to the employment of the vessel should be formed before she leaves the United States. And this must be a fixed intention; not conditional or contingent, depending on some future arrangements.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To attempt to do an act does not, either in law or in common parlance, imply a completion of the act, or any definite progress toward it; any effort or endeavor to effect it, will satisfy the terms of the law.” (Italics mine.)”
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.