Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 U.S. 680 - Hartzel v. United States

Hartzel v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

322 U.S. 680 · 1944

Citation profile

181
cited by 181 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

118 federal appellate · 12 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 181 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2015 · most notably Dennis v. United States (1951), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

118 federal appellate · 12 district · 12 state decisions

44019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 50 U.S.C. § 31

Relies on Spies v. United States · Hirabayashi v. United States · Schenck v. United States · United States v. Murdock · Abrams 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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “consisting of a clear and present danger that the activities in question will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47 . Both elements must be proved by the Government beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “the setting aside of [the two co-conspirators'] convictions makes it impossible to sustain petitioner's conviction upon the basis of ... the conspiracy count.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States....”
    1 later decision 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.