Minor v. Happersett’s Empirical Analysis
88 U.S. 162 · 1874
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 39 district · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 422 later decisions (77 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
74 federal appellate · 39 district · 109 state decisions — followed in 39 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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 422 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The fifteenth amendment does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one. It prevents the states, or the United States, however, from giving preference in this particular to one citizen of the United States over another on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Before its adoption, this could be done. It was as much within the power of a state to exclude citizens of the United States from voting on account of race, etc., as it was on account of age, property, or education. Now it is not. If citizens of one race, having certain qualifications, are permitted by law to vote, those of another having the same qualifications must be. Previous to this amendment there was no constitutional guaranty against this discrimination. Now there is. It follows that the amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which is within the protecting power of Congress. That right is exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This, under the express provisions of the second section of the amendment, Congress may enforce by ‘appropriate legislation.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[alll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.