United States v. Wittek’s Empirical Analysis
337 U.S. 346 · 1949
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 7 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2000 · most notably Powell v. United States Cartridge Co. (1950), Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation (1960)
60 federal appellate · 7 district · 21 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedWittek v. United States (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Dollar Savings Bank v. United States · United States v. Wyoming · United States v. Herron · United States v. Stevenson
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) general statute imposing restrictions does not impose them upon the Government itself without a clear expression or implication to that effect.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named. The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in the different States, and practically in the Federal courts. It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patriae, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British constitution.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . The prohibitions, if any, either express or implied, contained in the [Internal Revenue Law] of 1866, are for others, not for the Government. . . It is a familiar principle that the king is not bound by any Act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if they may tend.to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests. . The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to this Government, and it has been applied frequently in the different States, and practically in the Federal Courts.”
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.