Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 221 F.2d 342 - Updegraff v. Talbott

Updegraff v. Talbott’s Empirical Analysis

221 F.2d 342 · 1955

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
January 1964
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

Relationships

Applies 5 U.S.C. § 1001 · 5 U.S.C. § 1009

Relies on Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman Steamship Corp. · Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes · De La Fayette Wilcox v. John Jackson · Runkle v. United States · Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager

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

  1. ““ * * * What was sought was a court order controlling executive officers of the government with respect to the exercise of powers vested in them by statute. An action asking such relief is a suit against the government which cannot be maintained because the government has not consented to be sued in the courts with respect thereto * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““District Courts of the United States are without jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to control official action of executive officers of the government even where such writs would lie at common law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““This bill will not give access to the Federal Courts to an action which cannot now be brought against a Federal official in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.