Beckert v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Lavelle v. Koch (1992), Commonwealth v. Mockaitis (2003)
83 state decisions
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 · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · United States v. Unicorn Enterprises, Inc. · Wilson v. Philadelphia School District · Barrett v. Otis Elevator Co.
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[S]ince the destruction of one branch of government by another would be antithetical to the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, any legislative action which impairs the independence of the judiciary in its exercise of the judicial power and the administration of justice would be similarly abhorrent.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A basic precept of our form of government is that the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are independent, co-equal branches of government. . . . The allocation of these governmental powers to three distinct branches averts the danger inherent in the concentration of absolute power in a single body. . . . However, the separation of powers would not achieve this prophylactic effect unless it also prevented one branch from usurping the powers committed to the other branches of government. The crucial function of the separation of powers principle, therefore, is not separation per se, but the "checking" power each branch has over the others. . . . Thus, while the judicial power is vested exclusively in the courts, the taxing and spending powers necessary to sustain the existence of the judiciary is vested in the legislature. As we explained in Leahey v. Farrell , . . .: Control of state finances rests with the legislature, subject only to constitutional limitations. . . . Under the system of division of governmental powers it frequently happens that the functions of one branch may overlap another. But the successful and efficient administration of government assumes that each branch will cooperate with the others. . . . Should Commissioners, however, neglect or refuse to furnish funds, or sufficient funds, for reasonable judicial functions, and in consequence the efficient administration of the judicial branch of the government is thereby impaired or destroyed, the cour”
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.