Salsburg v. State of Maryland’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
84 federal appellate · 36 district · 237 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 515 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2018 · most notably San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher (1961)
84 federal appellate · 36 district · 237 state decisions — followed in 32 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 1257
Relies on Weeks v. United States · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Wolf v. People of the State of Colorado · Hayes v. State of Missouri · Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners
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 515 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(T)here is nothing in the Constitution to prevent any State from adopting any system of laws or judicature it sees fit for all or any part of its territory. If the State of New York, for example, should see fit to adopt the civil law and its method of procedure for New York City and the surrounding counties, and the common law and its method of procedure for the rest of the State, there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent its doing so.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The 14th Amendment does not profess to secure to all persons in the United States the benefit of the same laws and the same remedies. Great diversities in these respects may exist in two States separated only by an imaginary line. On one side of this line there might be a right of trial by jury, and on the other side no such right. Each State prescribes its own modes of judicial proceeding. If diversities of laws and judicial proceedings may exist in the several states without violating the equality clause in the 14th Amendment, there is no solid reason why there may not be such diversities in different parts of the same State. A uniformity which is not essential as regards different states cannot be essential as regards different parts of a State, provided that in each and all there is no infraction of the constitutional provision."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"It is * * * a maxim of constitutional law that a legislature is presumed to have acted within constitutional limits, upon full knowledge of the facts, and with the purpose of promoting the interests of the people as a whole, and courts will not lightly hold that an act duly passed by the legislature was one in the enactment of which it has transcended its power." Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U.S. 96, 104 , 19 S.Ct. 609 , 43 L.Ed. 909 (1899).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.