Fujii v. Dulles’s Empirical Analysis
224 F.2d 906 · 1955
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Schmidt v. Commissioner (1959), Sunkyong International, Inc. v. Anderson Land & Livestock Co. (1987)
21 federal appellate · 2 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 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1503 (§ 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 801 · 8 U.S.C. § 901
Relies on United States v. Menasche · Schneiderman v. United States · Technical Tape Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. · Bonner v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““On or about November 4, 1952, Plaintiff applied at the office of the American Vice-Consul, Kobe, Japan, for a passport to return to the United States as a citizen thereof. Said application for passport was denied Plaintiff by said Vice- Consul on the ground that Plaintiff had lost his United States citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 801 (c) by reason of the aforesaid service in the Japanese Armed Forces, and instead, on November 25, 1952, said Vice-Consul executed under his official seal as Vice-Consul of the United States a Certificate (as to Plaintiff) of the Loss of the Nationality of the United States on the ground aforesaid. Said action of the Vice-Consul in Kobe, Japan, was approved by the Washington office of the Department of State on December 18, 1952. “In so acting, the American Vice-Consul in Kobe, as well as the Washington office of the Department of State, acted as the agents of and for and on behalf of the Defendant and his predecessor in office. In so acting, said persons denied to plaintiff a right and privilege as a citizen and national of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.