Carmichael v. Delaney’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.2d 239 · 1948
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Rosenberg v. Fleuti (1963), Federal Communications Commission v. WJR, Goodwill Station, Inc. (1949)
18 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 22 U.S.C. § 223 · 8 U.S.C. § 201 · 8 U.S.C. § 451
Relies on United States Bilokumsky v. Tod · Ng Fung Ho v. White · St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States · United States v. Ju Toy · Delgadillo v. Carmichael
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The judge, while treating the proceeding before the board of special inquiry as properly an exclusion proceeding, accorded to the petitioner a judicial trial of his claim of American nativity. The director contends that this was error. He says that the administrative finding that appellee is not a citizen is final and that no ground exists for judicial intervention. Ordinarily, in an exclusion proceeding we understand the law to be as the director contends it to be, [citing cases] and if this were all there is to be said of the case we would be obliged to reverse the trial court -inasmuch as the administrative finding of alien-age was substantially supported by the evidence before the board. “But this is by no means all there is to be said of the matter. From the record on appeal two questions emerge, * * * and (2), assuming an entry, whether the principle of administrative finality ordinarily thought applicable in exclusion cases governs here. * * * ****** “We conclude that the trial court was right in granting appellee a judicial trial of his claim. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Frausto v. Brownell
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.