Gillars v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
182 F.2d 962 · 1950
Citation profile
80 federal appellate · 9 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably United States v. Rosenberg (1952), Monroe v. United States (1956)
80 federal appellate · 9 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 28 U.S.C. § 1783 · 8 U.S.C. § 801
Relies on McNabb v. United States · Dunn v. United States · Logan v. United States · Ker v. People of the State of Illinois · American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is no indication ... that the paper which [the defendant] said she signed was intended as a renunciation of citizenship; there is no testimony whatever that it was sworn to before anyone authorized to administer an oath or indeed before anyone at all; its exact content is uncertain; if it be treated as an affirmation or declaration rather than an oath it is informal rather than formal in character; and there is no connection whatever shown between it and any regulation or procedure having to do with citizenship or attaching oneself to the Reich or to Hitler. These circumstances preclude attributing to it the character of such an oath or affirmation or other formal declaration as the statute requires to bring about expatriation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“. Originally a section inserted into an Army Appropriation Act as a backwash of the Reconstruction period following the Civil War. Its legislative history, as set forth in Lieber, The Use of the Army in Aid of the Civil Power, indicates that the immediate objective of the legislation was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police state elections in the ex-Confederate states where the civil power had been reestablished. Id. at 936 . (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““All evidence shall be given under oath according to the forms of the common law, except that where a witness has conscientious scruples against taking an oath, he may, in lieu thereof, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm; and wherever herein any application, statement, or declaration is required to be supported or verified by an oath it is to be understood that such affirmation is the equivalent of an oath.””
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.