United States v. Holliday’s Empirical Analysis
70 U.S. 407 · 1865
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 43 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 215 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), United States v. Mazurie (1975)
64 federal appellate · 43 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
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 215 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reference to all matters of this kind, it is the rule of this court to follow the action of the executive and other political departments of the government, whose more special duty it is to determine such affairs. If by them those Indians are recognized as a tribe, this court must do the same.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Congress shall have power ... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Judge Marshall, in speaking of the power to regulate commerce with foreign states, says: ‘The power does not stop at the jurisdictional limits of the several states. It would be a very useless power, if it could not pass those lines.’ ‘If Congress has power to regulate it, that power must be exercised wherever the subject exists.’ It follows from these propositions, which seem to be incontrovertible, that if commerce, or traffic, or intercourse, is carried on with an Indian tribe, or with a member of such tribe, it is subject to be regulated by Congress, although witliin the limits of a state. The locality of the traffic can have nothing to do with the power. The fight to exercise it in reference to any Indian tribe, or any person who is a member of such tribe, is absolute, without reference to the locality of the traffic, or the locality of the tribe, or of the member of the tribe with whom it is carried on. It is not, however, intended by these remarks to imply -that this clause of the Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate any other commerce, originated and ended within the limits of a single state, than commerce with the Indian tribes.””
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.