Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 U.S. 700 - Texas v. White

Texas v. White’s Empirical Analysis

74 U.S. 700 · 1868

Citation profile

200
cited by 200 later decisions
74
cited 74 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 7 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 200 later decisions (74 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. (1970), Baker v. Carr (1962)

21 federal appellate · 7 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 17 states

25018681870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Generes v. Bonnemer · William W. v. Hodges

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

  1. “[T]he preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all of its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is not necessary to attempt any exact definitions within which the acts of such a state government must be treated as valid, or invalid. It may be said, perhaps with sufficient accuracy, that acts necessary to peace and good order among citizens, such, for example, as acts sanctioning and protecting marriage and the domestic relations, governing the course of descents, regulating the conveyance and transfer of property, real and personal, and providing remedies for injuries to person and estate, and other similar acts, which would be valid if emanat ing from a lawful government,- must be regarded in general as valid when proceeding from an actual, though unlawful -government; and that acts in furtherance or support of rebellion against the United States, or intended to defeat the just rights of citizens, and other acts of like nature, must, in general, be regarded as invalid and void.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens, of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation. Our conclusion, therefore, is, that. Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred.”
    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.