Paul v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
144 federal appellate · 88 district · 77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 588 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. (1957), Chrysler Corporation v. Brown (1979)
144 federal appellate · 88 district · 77 state decisions — followed in 22 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Williamson v. United States · James v. Dravo Contracting Co. · Public Utilities Commission of State of California v. United States · Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe
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 588 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the District of Columbia], ... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the obtaining of exclusive jurisdiction in the United States over lands or interests therein which have been or shall hereafter be acquired by it shall not be required; but the head or other authorized officer of any department or independent establishment or agency of the Government may, in such cases and at such times as he may deem desirable, accept or secure from the State in which any lands or interests therein under his immediate jurisdiction, custody, or control are situated, consent to or cession of such jurisdiction, exclusive or partial, not theretofore obtained, over any such lands or interests as he may deem desirable and indicate acceptance of such jurisdiction on behalf of the United States by filing a notice of such acceptance with the Governor of such State or in such other manner as may be prescribed by the laws of the State where such lands are situated. Unless and until the United States has accepted jurisdiction over lands hereafter to be acquired as aforesaid, it shall be conclusively presumed that no such jurisdiction has been accepted.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“federal enclaves which 'are to (Florida) as the territory of one of her sister states or a foreign land.' " See also Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 , 268, 83 S.Ct. 426, 439, 9 L.Ed.2d 292 (1963) where the Court stated, "Since a state may not legislate with respect to a federal enclave unless it reserved the right to do so when it gave its consent to the purchase by the United States, only state law existing at the time of the acquisition remains enforceable not subsequent laws.”
5 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.