Uphaus v. Wyman’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 9 district · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 267 later decisions (66 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Ingraham v. Wright (1977), Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
51 federal appellate · 9 district · 86 state decisions — followed in 18 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 18 U.S.C. § 2385 · 28 U.S.C. § 1257
Relies on Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath · Palko v. State of Connecticut · Crowell v. Benson
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 267 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... The basis of Nelson thus rejects the notion that it stripped the States of the right to protect themselves. . . . The opinion made clear that a State could proceed with prosecutions for sedition against the State itself; that it can legitimately investigate this area follows a fortiori.” 360 U. S. 76 , 79 S. Ct. 1044 , 3 L. Ed. 2d 1096 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"In Nelson itself we said that the `precise holding of the court * * * is that the Smith Act * * * which prohibits the knowing advocacy of the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence, supersedes the enforceability of the Pennsylvania Sedition Act which proscribed the same conduct.' (Italics supplied.) 350 U.S., at 499 , 76 S.Ct. at 478 , 100 L.Ed. 640 . The basis of Nelson thus rejects the notion that it stripped the States of the right to protect themselves. All the opinion proscribed was a race between federal and state prosecutors to the courthouse door. The opinion made clear that a State could proceed with prosecutions for sedition against the State itself; that it can ligitimately investigate in this area follows a fortiori. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire [ 354 U.S. 234 , 77 S.Ct. 1203 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1311 ], supra, where the same contention was made as to the identical state Act, it was denied sub silentio. Nor did our opinion in Nelson hold that the Smith Act had proscribed state activity in protection of itself either from actual or threatened `sabotage or attempted violence of all kinds.' In footnote 8 of the opinion it is pointed out that the State had full power to deal with internal civil disturbances. Thus registration statutes, quo warranto proceedings as to subversive corporations, the subversive instigation of riots and a host of other subjects directly affecting state security furnish grist for the State's legislative mill."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cade“'essentially a civil remedy designed for the benefit of other parties . . . exercised for centuries to secure compliance with judicial decrees.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ingraham v. Wright
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.