Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 364 - Ex parte Bradley

Ex parte Bradley’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 364 · 1868

Citation profile

289
cited by 289 later decisions
43
cited 43 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

88 federal appellate · 13 district · 77 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 289 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Spevack v. Klein (1967), Ex parte United States (1916)

88 federal appellate · 13 district · 77 state decisions — followed in 29 states

54018681870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Strawbridge v. Curtiss

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 289 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The Supreme Court shall have power to issue * * * writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed under the authority of the United States, or to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, where a State, or an embassador, or other public minister, or a consul or vice-consul is a party.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““For we agree that this writ does not lie to control the judicial discretion of the judge or court; and hence, where the act complained of rested in the exercise of this discretion, the remedy fails.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The order disbarring them or subjecting them to fine or imprisonment is not reviewabie by writ of error; it not being a judgment in the sense of the law for which this writ will lie.””
    2 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.