Mayor Aldermen Commonalty New York v. George Miln’s Empirical Analysis
36 U.S. 102 · 1837
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 211 later decisions (52 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), Caminetti v. United States (1917)
10 federal appellate · 9 district · 57 state decisions — followed in 20 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
Relies on Gibbons v. Ogden · Samuel Worcester v. The State of Georgia · Brown v. Maryland · Sturges v. Crowninshield · Houston v. Moore
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 211 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation; where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a state, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are aware that it is at all times difficult to define any subject with proper precision and accuracy. If this be so in general, it is emphatically so in relation to a subject so diversified and multifarious as the one which we are now considering [the police power]. If we were to attempt it, we should say that every law came within this description which concerned the welfare of the whole people of a State, or any individual within it; whether it related to their rights'ór their duties; whether it respected them as men or as citizens of the State; whether in their public or private relations; whether it related to the rights of persons or of property, of the whole people of a State or of any individual within, it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Holden v. Hardy““AVe think it as competent and as necessary for a State to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound or infectious articles imported, * * 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) at 143 .”
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.