Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 F.2d 592 - Lehmann v. Acheson

Lehmann v. Acheson’s Empirical Analysis

206 F.2d 592 · 1953

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2003
most recently cited

65 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2003 · most notably Galena Oaks Corporation v. Frank Scofield, Collector of Internal Revenue (1954), Nishikawa v. Dulles (1958)

65 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

650195319601970198019902000decided

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. § 5 · 8 U.S.C. § 801 · 8 U.S.C. § 901

Relies on Schneiderman v. United States · Baumgartner v. United States · Perkins v. Elg · Kawakita v. United States · Mandoli v. Acheson

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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In so far, however, as the so-called `ultimate fact' is simply the result reached by processes of legal reasoning from, or the interpretation of the legal significance of, the evidentiary fact, it is `subject to review free of the restraining impact of the so-called "clearly erroneous”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘Expatriation is a voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance.’ Perkins v. Elg, 1939, 307 U.S. 325, 334 , 59 S. Ct. 884, 889 , 83 L.Ed. 1320 . “Conscription into the Army of a foreign government of one holding dual citizenship is sufficient to establish prima facie that his entry and service were involuntary. Perri v. Dulles, 3 Cir., 206 F.2d 586 . “It is well settled that expatriation under Sec. 401(c) is ‘limited to cases where the induction into the foreign military service may be said to have been voluntary.’ Dos Reis v. Nicolls, 1 Cir., 1947, 161 F.2d 860, 861 ; Podea v. Acheson, 2 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 306 ; Pandolfo v. Acheson, 2 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 38 ; Cf. Tomaya Kawakita v. United States, 1952, 343 U.S. 717 , 72 S.Ct. 950 , 96 L.Ed. 1249 . “In Doreau v. Marshall, 3 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 721 , 723 we held, in construing the provisions of Sec. 401, that ‘the very essence of expatriation is that it be voluntary’.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““A person who is a national of • the United States, whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by: ****** “(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 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.