Kent v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
523 federal appellate · 76 district · 3,231 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4,200 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2026 · most notably Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), Gault (1967)
523 federal appellate · 76 district · 3,231 state decisions — followed in 49 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
reviewedKent v. United States (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Allen v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Del Vecchio v. Bowers · Durham v. United States
Cited together with Gault · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · McKeiver v. Pennsylvania · Breed v. Jones · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera
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 4,200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.”
325 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“after full investigation, I do hereby waive jurisdiction of petitioner.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex parte Navarro · People v. Brewer“In the case of adults, arraignment before a magistrate for determination of probable cause and advice to the arrested person as to his rights, etc., are provided by law and are regarded as fundamental. Cf. Fed.Rules Crim. Proc. 5(a), (b); Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 , 77 S.Ct. 1356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 . In Harling v. United States, [ 111 U.S.App.D.C. 174 , 295 F.2d 161 ], the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has stated the basis for this distinction between juveniles and adults as follows: “It is, of course, because children are, generally speaking, exempt from criminal penalties that safeguards of the criminal law, such as Rule 5 and the exclusionary Mallory rule, have no general application in juvenile proceedings.” 111 U.S.App.D.C., at 176 , 295 F.2d. at 163 . In Edwards v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 383 , 384, 330 F.2d 849 , 850 (1964), it was said that: “ * * * special practices * * * follow the apprehension of a juvenile. He may be held in custody by the juvenile authorities — and is available to investigating officers — for five days before any formal action need be taken. There is no duty to take Mm before a magistrate, and no responsibility to inform Mm of his rights. He is not booked. The statutory intent is to establish a non-punitive, non-criminal atmosphere.” We indicate no view as to the legality of these practices. Cf. Harling v. United States, supra, 111 U.S.App.D.C., at 176 , 295 F.2d, at 163, n. 12 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Brown v. Fauntleroy
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.