Barrett v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
February 1971
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Brown v. Walker · Metropolitan Co v. District of Columbia · State Corporation Commission of Kansas v. Wichita Gas Co · May v. United States · Laughlin v. Cummings
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The complaint herein prays for an injunction. An injunction proceeding is, of course, not the proper remedy for asserting a constitutional privilege, nor for claiming a privilege under the rules of evidence. A claim of privilege to refuse to answer a question is personal to the witness, Brown v. Walker, 1896, 161 U.S. 591 , 16 S.Ct. 644 , 40 L.Ed. 819 . That privilege must be asserted after a witness is asked a question and the witness refuses to answer. May v. U. S., 1949, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 240 ( 175 F.2d 994 ). “An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and should not be granted unless necessary to protect rights against injuries otherwise irremediable. State Corporation Commission, Wichita Gas Co., 1934, 290 U.S. 561 , 54 S.Ct. 321 , 78 L.Ed. 500 . ‘There is a strong presumption that public officers exercise their duties in accordance with law. An injunction will not issue to restrain official conduct without a clear showing of abuse of lawful duty or wrongful usurpation of power.’ Laughlin v. Cummings, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 192, 194 ( 105 F.2d 71 ). No such clear showing has been made out here. The matter at the present time is in the nature of an inter (ra) departmental dispute, and Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the conduct of administrative proceedings. Riss & Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 79 , 179 F.2d 810 . There is in this case a mere assertion that certain rights may be denied to the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs do suff”
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.