Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 F.2d 786 - Menke v. Thompson

Menke v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

140 F.2d 786 · 1944

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
10
states following
April 1980
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 1980 · most notably Gitelson v. Du Pont (1966), Valle v. Joint Plumbing Industry Board (1980)

22 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 states

20019441950196019701980decided

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 Clark v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co. · In Re the Voluntary Dissolution of Lenox Corp. · Schofield v. Zion's Co-Op. Mercantile Institution · Albring v. New York Central and Hudson River Rail. Co. · McCullough v. Clinch-Mitchell Const. Co.

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * The decision of the Board of Pensions denying Menke’s claim for a pension is therefore conclusive, to use the words of this court in Guild v. Andrews, 8 Cir., 137 F. 369, 371 , ‘in the absence of fraud or such gross mistakes as imply bad faith or a failure to exercise an honest judgment.’ The burden of showing such fraud, bad faith, or mistake was upon the appellant here, and, to sustain such a showing, the evidence ‘must be more than a mere preponderance, it must be overwhelming.’ * * * ””
    3 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.