Acheson v. Yee King Gee’s Empirical Analysis
184 F.2d 382 · 1950
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 2016
12 federal appellate · 6 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 8 U.S.C. § 501 · 8 U.S.C. § 601
Relies on Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc. · Utah Fuel Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Common · United States v. Rockteschell
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The term ‘residence,’ as there used, is entitled to a broad and liberal construction. Significantly, it is not qualified by the words ‘actual’ or ‘continuous.’ It implies no requirement of physical presence. Moreover, § 104 of the Act [ 8 U.S.C.A. § 104 ] provides that for the purpose of certain designated sections, including 201, ‘the place of general abode shall be deemed the place of residence.’ The court found on persuasive evidence that the father’s two visits to China were for the purpose of visiting his relatives and for no other reason; that he had no intention of abandoning his residence in the United States, and that in fact he had resided here since his arrival in August 1929, hence had been a resident of this country for nearly 12 years prior to the date of appellee’s birth.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. You v. Acheson““Both below and here the Secretary has urged but two propositions, (1) that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and (2) that the father had not resided in the United States for the required ten years prior to appellee’s birth. We agree with the trial court that the Secretary is wrong on both counts. “[1] The first point has to do really with venue rather than jurisdiction. The contention is that in the circumstances of the case the only court in which action might be brought was the district court for the District of Columbia, where the Secretary resides.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lee Hung v. Acheson““The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth; * * * “(g) A person born outside the United States * * * of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person has had ten years’ residence in the United States * * *, at least five of which were after attaining the age of sixteen years, the other being an alien: * * * (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. You v. Acheson
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.