In re Davison’s Empirical Analysis
21 F. 618 · 1884
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1986
4 federal appellate · 8 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
Relies on United States v. Cook · Ex parte Reed · Kearney · In re White · In re Davison
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No person under the age of twenty-one years shall be enlisted or mustered into the military service of the United States without the written consent of his parents or guardians; provided, that such minor has such parents or guardians, entitled to his custody and control.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In re Baker · In re Chapman““The provision should not be extended to protect a party competent to contract against the consequences of his deliberate agreement, or of his own mis! representations, unless the language plainly requires such a construction. The language is satisfied by a construction which permits the parents or guardians, who are entitled to the services and custody of the minor, to intervene and assert their rights, if their consent to his enlistment has not been obtained. Several adjudications are to the effect that under section 1117, or former laws of congress of similar purport, the contract of enlistment should be held invalid on the application of the parents or guardian of the minor. Com. v. Blake, 8 Phila. 523 ; Turner v. Wright, 5 Phila. 296 ; Henderson v. Wright, Id. 299 ; Seavey v. Seymour, 3 Cliff. 439 . None, however, are cited by counsel, or have met the attention of the court, in which it lias been decided that the minor, if over 16 years of age, can assert the invalidity of his contract. The case of Menges v. Camac, 1 Serg. & R. 87 , arising under the act of March 16, 1802, is directly in point. The statute in that case was similar in its provisions to section 1117, and the court held the minor bound by his contract; that the parent alone could assert its invalidity, and therefore refused to discharge the minor upon habeas corpus at his own application.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Chapman
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.