Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 U.S. 665 - Baumgartner v. United States

Baumgartner v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

322 U.S. 665 · 1944

Citation profile

876
cited by 876 later decisions
99
cited 99 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

398 federal appellate · 57 district · 76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 876 later decisions (99 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Brown v. Allen (1953), Pullman-Standard v. Swint (1982)

398 federal appellate · 57 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 15 states

3150194419501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedBaumgartner v. United States (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Schneiderman v. United States · Missouri v. Holland · Tutun v. United States

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

  1. “may involve the very basis on which judgment of fallible evidence is to be made.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures — and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The measure of proof requisite to denaturalize a citizen was before this Court in Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 , 63 S.Ct. 1333 , 87 L.Ed. 1796 . It was there held that proof to bring about a loss of citizen-o ship must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot escape the conviction that the case made out by the Government lacks that solidity of proof which leaves no troubling doubt in deciding a question of such gravity as is implied in an attempt to reduce a person to the status of alien from that of citizen.””
    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.