De Busk v. Harvin’s Empirical Analysis
212 F.2d 143 · 1954
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Barr v. Matteo (1959), City of Greenwood v. Peacock (1966)
26 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Relies on Spalding v. Vilas · Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch · Gregoire v. Biddle · Maryland v. Soper · Cooper v. O'Connor
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Considerations of procedural regularity are peculiarly inappropriate and premature for judicial inquiry on this review, and we expressly refrain from any comment thereon, since it appears from the record that the validity of appellee's action in dismissing appellant has been appealed administratively, and is still pending before the Civil Service Commission for final review. * * * We merely hold that, since appellant does not here seek reinstatement to his former job or otherwise attack the legality vel non of his discharge in a manner presently appropriate for judicial review, his petition seeking damages from appellees individually for their official act in discharging him is insufficient to state a claim for relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 1442. Federal Officers Sued or Prosecuted "(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: "(1) Any officer of the United States or any agency thereof, or person acting under him, for any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. O'Campo v. Hardisty““ * * * The uncontroverted afdavits of appellees, attached as exhibits to the amended petition for removal, clearly reveal that appellant’s dismissal by appellees was an ‘act under color of * * * office’, within the meaning of the removal statute.””
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.