Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 U.S. 727 - Ex parte Jackson

Ex parte Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

96 U.S. 727 · 1877

Citation profile

806
cited by 806 later decisions
100
cited 100 times by the Supreme Court
37
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

253 federal appellate · 87 district · 172 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 806 later decisions (100 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Katz v. United States (1967), Fay v. Noia (1963)

253 federal appellate · 87 district · 172 state decisions — followed in 37 states

14601877188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Kohl v. 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 806 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[l]iberty of circulating is as essential to [the right of freedom of speech] as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value”
    45 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In excluding various articles from the mail, the object of Congress has not been to interfere with the freedom of the press, or with any other rights of the people; but to refuse its facilities for the distribution of matter deemed injurious to the public morals. Thus, by the Act of March 3, 1873 [ 17 Stat. 599 , § 2], Congress declared 'that no obseene, lewd, or lascivious book, pamphlet, picture, paper, print, or other publication of an indecent character, or any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring of abortion, nor any article or thing intended or adapted for any indecent or immoral use or nature, nor any written or printed card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind, giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or of whom,-or by what means, either of the things before mentioned may be obtained or made, nor any letter upon the envelope of which, or postal-card upon which indecent or scurrilous epithets may be written or printed, shall be carried in the mail; and any person who shall knowingly deposit, or cause to be deposited, for mailing or delivery, any of the hereinbefore mentioned articles or things, * * * shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall, for every offence, be fined not less than $100, nor more than $5,000, or imprisonment .at hard labor not less than one year nor more than ten years, or both, in the discretion of the judge.’ “All that Congr”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““But we do not think that Congress possesses the power to prevent the transportation in other ways, as merchandise, of matter which it excludes from the mails. To give efficiency to its regulations and prevent rival postal systems, it may perhaps prohibit the carriage by others for hire, over postal routes, of articles which legitimately constitute mail matter, in ihe sense in which those terms were used when the Constitution was adopted, consisting of letters, and of newspapers and pamphlets, when not sent as merchandise; but further than this its power of prohibition cannot extend.””
    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.