United States v. Dollar’s Empirical Analysis
196 F.2d 551 · 1952
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2011
8 federal appellate · 4 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 Land US v. Dollar · United States v. Lee · United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · United States v. Candelaria · Souffront v. La Compagnie Des Sucreries De Porto Rico
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When an individual holding public office is sued, as here, it is not in the public interest that he should not be defended. I think that a public policy that he should -be defended and the. propriety of his challenged acts asserted, is fully consistent with the rule of sovereignty immunity. Yet appellees would have it that if the Attorney General provides this defense, the Government is bound practically to the same extent as. if it had been properly made a defendant in the first place. “The argument that litigation should have an end, that the private litigant who sues the public officer as an individual should not be denied the fruits of a hard won victory, is not without appeal. But I think that the public policy behind the rule of sovereign immunity is one which must prevail against these other considerations. That, in my opinion, is why the ordinary rules of collateral estoppel should not apply here.” (Footnotes omitted.) 196 F.2d 551, at 554 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““As we pointed out on an earlier occasion, United States v. Dollar, 9 Cir., 193 F.2d 114 , the ground of the judgment below is that by reason of the intervention of governmental counsel in the defense of the suit against the Maritime Commission, the United States is estopped to relitigate the issues determined in that suit. The decision appears to us at loggerheads with repeated declarations of the Supreme Court in the course of the earlier suit. Land v. Dollar, 330 U.S. 731, 736, 737, 739 , 67 S.Ct. 1009 , 91 L.Ed. 1209 ; Land v. Dollar, 341 U.S. 737, 739, 741 , 71 S.Ct. 987 , 95 L.Ed. 1331 . It is for that tribunal, not for us or for the district judge, to determine whether those declarations still hold good.” at 553.”
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.