Bartemeyer v. Iowa’s Empirical Analysis
85 U.S. 129 · 1873
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 229 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), Poe v. Ullman (1961)
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 30 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 Santo v. State
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 229 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The law, therefore, was not an invasion of property existing at the'date of its passage, and the question of depriving a person of property without due process of law does not arise. Ho one has ever doubted that the legislature may prohibit the vending of articles deemed injurious to the safety of society, provided it does not interfere with vested rights of property. When such rights stand in the way of public good, they are to be removed by awarding compensation to the owner.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No 'state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““But if it were true, and if it were fairly presented to us, that the defendant was the owner of the glass of intoxicating liquor -which he sold to Hickey at the time that the state of Iowa first imposed an absolute prohibition on the sale of such liquors, then we can see that two very grave questions would arise: "Whether this would be a statute depriving him of his property without due process of law; and (2) whether, if it were so, it would be so far a violation of the fourteenth amendment in that regard as would call for judicial action by this court.””
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.