Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 U.S. 596 - McDowell v. United States

McDowell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

159 U.S. 596 · 1895

Citation profile

190
cited by 190 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

91 federal appellate · 20 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 190 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk (1962), Ryder v. United States (1995)

91 federal appellate · 20 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 15 states

32018951900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Norton v. Shelby County · Ball 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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * the rule [was] well settled that where there is an office to be filled, and one, acting under color of authority, fills the office and discharges its duties, his actions are those of an officer de facto, and binding upon the public.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The time and place of a regular term of the District Court were fixed by law at Greenville, on the first Monday of February. Judge Seymour was a judge of the United States District Court, having all the powers attached to such office. He appeared at the time and place fixed by law for the regular term, and actually held that term. The Circuit Judge had, generally speaking, the power of designating the judge of some other district to do the work of the District Judge in this district. The order of designation was regular in form, and there was nothing on its face to suggest that there was any vacancy in the office of District Judge for the District of South Carolina. Any defect in the order, if defect there was, is shown only by matters dehors the record. While this may not be conclusive, it strongly sustains the contention of the government that Judge Seymour was, while holding that term, at least a judge de facto. Whatever doubt there may be as to the power of designation attaching in this particular emergency, the fact is that Judge Seymour was acting by virtue of an appointment, regular on its face, and the rule is well settled that where there is an office to be filled and one acting under color of authority fills the office and discharges its duties, his actions are those of an officer de facto and binding upon the public. Of course, if he was judge de facto his orders or the continuance of the term from day to day until February 12, when the regular judge took his place”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “trespass upon the executive power of appointment”
    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.