Mellon v. Brewer’s Empirical Analysis
18 F.2d 168 · 1927
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1982 · most notably Barr v. Matteo (1959), Gregoire v. Biddle (1949)
43 federal appellate · 4 district · 15 state decisions
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 Spalding v. Vilas · The York and Maryland Line Railroad Company v. Ross Winans · De Arnaud v. Ainsworth · 2 App. D.C. 290 - Backus Portable Steam Heater Co. v. Simonds
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are of opinion that the same general considerations of public policy and convenience which demand for judges of courts of superior jurisdiction immunity from civil suits for damages arising from acts done by them in the course of the performance of their judicial functions, apply to a large extent to official communications made by heads of Executive Departments when engaged in the discharge of duties imposed upon them by law. The interests of the people require that due protection be accorded to them in respect of their official acts. As in the case of a judicial officer, we recognize a distinction between action taken by the head of a Department in reference to matters which are manifestly or palpably beyond his authority, and actions having [a legitimate or proper] connection with the general matters committed by law to his control or supervision. . . . In exercising the functions of his office, the head of an Executive Department, keeping within the limits of his authority, should not be under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry in a civil suit for damages. It would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government, if he were subjected to any such restraint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matson v. Margiotti
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.