Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 217 F.2d 360 - Talcott v. Reed

Talcott v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis

217 F.2d 360 · 1954

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
March 1972
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 1972 · most notably Kaline v. United States (1956), Mason v. United States (1954)

19 federal appellate · 4 district ·

110195419601970decided

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. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 50 U.S.C. § 3801 · 50 U.S.C. § 3803

Relies on Estep v. United States · Dickinson v. United States · Falbovs v. United States · Cox v. United States · Ex parte Endo

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

  1. ““The contention cannot be sustained as to the first petition because there was some evidence on the face of petitioner’s returned questionnaire upon which the board could reasonably have placed petitioner in the deferred class. To the printed question in the questionnaire as to whether, in his opinion, he had any mental or physical disqualification, he answered, ‘No.’ He later added, T was discharged from Naval Reserve Training Corps because of a punctured ear drum. Later examination showed no such condition.’ And again later he explained, ‘As stated in Series XV, I feel that the condition of my ear drum should be clearly established.’ It would, perhaps, have been advisable for the board to have complied with this suggestion, but that they did not do so does not vitiate the evidence tending to establish the punctured ear drum. The evidence constituted a basis-in-fact. See Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389 , 74 S.Ct. 152 [ 98 L.Ed. 132 ], and Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442 , 453, 68 S.Ct. 115 , 92 L.Ed. 59 . * * * ””
    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.