Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 F.2d 284 - Miles v. Armstrong

Miles v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis

207 F.2d 284 · 1953

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
September 1992
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 1992 · most notably Hoffman v. Halden (1959), Virgil Norton, Virgil Wesley and James Chapman v. James P. McShane (1964)

36 federal appellate · 3 district ·

24019531960197019801990decided

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 Collins v. Hardyman · United States v. Harris · Love v. Chandler · Hardyman v. Collins

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

  1. ““[T]o be valid the act must be held to apply only to deprivation of federal rights. If it be so construed as to include deprivation of purely state rights, it would not seem to be within the Constitution.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In this situation it was wholly immaterial whether the court dismissed the claim because it was insufficient to state a federal cause of action or whether, believing such to be the ease, it dismissed the cause because it had no jurisdiction of the nonfederal action. Obviously, however, plaintiff’s rights on appeal would exist in either instance.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Obviously before any liability will attach under this section, the acts complained of must have been done under color of authority of the state. Yet we find in the complaint no averment that defendants actually acted under color of any such prerogatives.””
    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.