Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 145 F.2d 431 - The Maret

The Maret’s Empirical Analysis

145 F.2d 431 · 1944

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably 293 F. Supp. 892 - Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss, Jena (1968), Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v. Goldberg and Feldman Fine Arts Inc (1990)

17 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

1501944195019601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 12 U.S.C. § 95 · 48 U.S.C. § 1391

Relies on Guaranty Trust Co of New York v. United States · United States v. Pink · Oetjen v. Central Leather Co. · Balzac v. People of Porto Rico · United States v. Belmont

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

  1. “It has long been the law that the consular agents of nations are to be accorded the right to appear in our courts to protect their nationals and their nationals' property”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * I find difficulty in seeing a parallel in the case of nonrecognition which seems to me simply absence of recognition. But in the absence of recognition of the foreign government, it seems not improper, in a litigated matter, to deny effect to an act of that government which purports to change the ownership of a chattel many hundreds of miles away from its borders. Therefore, I think the result reached is the correct one.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[N]o valid distinction can be drawn between the political or diplomatic act of nonrecognition of a sovereign and nonrecognition of the decrees or acts of that sovereign.... Nonrecognition of a foreign sovereign and nonrecognition of its decrees are to be deemed to be as essential a part of the power confided by the Constitution to the Executive for the conduct of foreign affairs as recognition.”
    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.