Miller v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
78 U.S. 268 · 1870
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 36 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 242 later decisions (54 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. (1926), Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
65 federal appellate · 36 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Relationships
Relies on The Brig Amy Warwick the Schooner Crenshaw the Barque Hiawatha the Schooner Brilliante · The Mary Stafford Master · The Brig Ann · Armitz Drown v. The United States
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 242 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question, therefore, is, whether the action of Congress was a legitimate exercise of the war power. The Constitution confers upon Congress expressly power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules respecting captures on land and water. Upon the exercise of these powers no restrictions are imposed. Of course the power to declare war involves the power to prosecute it by all means and in any manner in which war may be legitimately prosecuted. It therefore includes the right to seize and confiscate all property of an enemy and to dispose of it at the-will of the captor. This is and always has been an undoubted belligerent right. If there were any uncertainty respecting the existence of such a right it would be set at rest by the express grant of power to make rules respecting captures on land and water. It is argued that though there are no express constitutional restrictions upon the power of Congress to declare and prosecute war, or to make rules respecting captures on land and water, there are restrictions implied in the nature of the powers themselves. Hence it is said the power to prosecute war is only a power to prosecute it according to the law of nations, and a power to make rules respecting captures is a power to make such rules only as are within the laws of nations. Whether this is so or not we do not care to inquire, for it is not necessary to the present ease. It is sufficient that the right to confiscate the property of all public en”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An Act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“make rules concerning captures on land and water.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.