Lewis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
282 federal appellate · 48 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 491 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Marchetti v. United States (1968), Grosso v. United States (1968)
282 federal appellate · 48 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 16 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLewis v. United States (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Leary v. United States · United State v. Kahriger · Blau v. United States · United States v. Stafoff
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 491 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`If petitioner desires to engage in an unlawful business, he does so only on his own volition. The fact that he may elect to pay the tax and make the prescribed disclosures required by the Act is a matter of his choice. There is nothing compulsory about it, and, consequently, there is nothing violative of the Fifth Amendment.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Assuming that respondent can raise the self-incrimination issue, that privilege has relation only to past acts, not to future acts that may or may not be committed. 8 Wig-more (3d ed., 1940) § 2259(c). If respondent wishes to take wagers subject to excise taxes under § 3285, supra, he must pay an occupational tax and register. Under the registration provisions of the wagering tax, appellee is not compelled to confess to acts already committed, he is merely informed by the statute that in order to engage in the business of wagering in the future he must fulfill certain conditions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Mills
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.