Perri v. Dulles’s Empirical Analysis
206 F.2d 586 · 1953
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2006 · most notably Nishikawa v. Dulles (1958), Lehmann v. Acheson (1953)
22 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1435 (§ 324 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on United States v. Wong Kim Ark · Perkins v. Elg · Savorgnan v. United States · Kawakita v. United States · Mackenzie v. Hare
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That a person who has acquired foreign nationality through the naturalization of his parent or parents, and who at the same time is a citizen of the United States, shall, if abroad and he. has not hertofore expatriated himself as an American citizen by his own voluntary act, be permitted within two years from the effective date of his (sic) chapter to return to the United States and take up permanent residence therein, and it shall be thereafter deemed that he has elected to be an American citizen. Failure on the part of such person to so return and take up permanent residence in the United States during such period shall be deemed to be a determination on the part of such person to discontinue his status as an American citizen, and such person shall be forever estopped by such failure from thereafter claiming ' such American citizenship.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Acchione““that the two years period of limitation must also be regarded as not beginning to run until the plaintiff learned that he had a claim to American citizenship. For to provide that a citizen ‘shall be forever estopped’ from claiming citizenship by his failure to return to the United States at a time when he was wholly unaware of his citizenship would certainly be to deprive him of it arbitrarily and without his knowledge, much less, his concurrence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Acchione““A person who is a national of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by; $ sjc ^ j}: % • “(b) Taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to, a foreign state; or “(c) Entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state unless expressly authorized by the laws of the United States, if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state; * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lehmann 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.