Bertelsen v. Cooney’s Empirical Analysis
213 F.2d 275 · 1954
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 1988 · most notably Simmons v. United States (1969), United States v. Kember (1970)
17 federal appellate · 3 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 Bolling v. Sharpe · Hirabayashi v. United States · Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins · Falbovs v. United States · United States v. Macintosh
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Petitioner concedes, as indeed he must in the light of the adjudicated cases, that under Art. I, sec. 8, of the Constitution, Congress has the power to raise and support armies, to maintain a Navy, and to draft personnel for service therein. This power exists in peace time as well as in war. The power is plenary. It is not for the judiciary to review the legislative branch on the question of what military strength is necessary for the safety of the Nation, nor how the forces shall be raised, nor of what elements they shall be composed. These matters are confided to Congress and its agencies. United States ex rel. Goodman v. Hearn; 5 Cir., 153 F.2d 186 ; United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 , 51 S.Ct. 570 , 75 L.Ed. 1302 ; Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 , 64 S.Ct. 346 , 88 L.Ed. 305 ; United States v. Henderson, 7 Cir., 180 F.2d 711 ; United States v. Cornell, D.C., 36 F.Supp. 81 ; Warren v. United States, 10 Cir., 177 F.2d 596 ; Bronemann v. United States, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 333 .” ****** “[I]t was never intended to limit the war powers of Congress nor its right to exact public service from all when necessary to meet the public need, Congress being the sole judge of the necessity and extent thereof. Heflin v. Sanford, 5 Cir., 142 F.2d 798 . Congress is expressly authorized to declare war and to provide for the common defense. These powers necessarily carry with them the power to say who shall serve in the armed forces, and in what circumstances.” Id. at 276-278. (Emp”
2 later decisions 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.