United States v. Five Gambling Devices’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
126 federal appellate · 28 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 256 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably United States v. Lopez (1995), United States v. Bass (1971)
126 federal appellate · 28 district · 11 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1171 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1172 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1173 · 15 U.S.C. § 1176 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1177 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1301 (Charity Games Advertising Clarification Act of 1988) · 18 U.S.C. § 1762 · 18 U.S.C. § 2311 (Anti Car Theft Act of 1992)
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Connally v. General Construction Co. · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.
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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The principle is old and deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence that this Court will construe a statute in a manner that requires decision of serious constitutional questions only if the statutory language leaves no reasonable alternative.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““No precedent of this Court sustains the power of Congress to enact legislation penalizing failure to report information concerning acts not shown to be in, or mingled with, or found to affect (interstate) commerce. The course of decision relied on by the Government on analysis falls short of the holding asked of us here. Indeed, we find no instance where Congress has attempted under the commerce power to impose reporting duties under penal sanction which would raise the question posed by these proceedings. It is apparent that the Government’s pleadings raise, and no doubt were intended to raise, a far-reaching question as to the extent of congressional power over matters internal to the individual states.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“here there is no attempt to regulate (local activities); all that is required is information in aid of enforcement of The conceded power to ban interstate transportation.”
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.