Chin Chuck Ming v. Dulles’s Empirical Analysis
225 F.2d 849 · 1955
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably Yung Jin Teung ex rel. Yung Quock Kew v. Dulles (1956), Stipa v. Dulles (1956)
16 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. § 1503 (§ 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Schneiderman v. United States · Kwock Jan Fat v. White · Wong Wing Foo v. McGrath · Gong v. Brownell
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When an officer of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, a territory, an insular possession, a state, county, city, or other governmental agency, is a party to an action and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor, if within 6 months after the successor takes office it is satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need for so continuing and maintaining it. Substitution pursuant to this rule may be made when it is shown by supplemental pleading that the successor of an officer adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor in enforcing a law averred to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to object. As amended Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Poindexter v. Folsom““If any person who claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States is denied such right or privilege by any department or agency, or executive official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person, regardless of whether he is within the United States or abroad, may institute an action against the head of such Department or agency * * * in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person claims a permanent residence for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mon v. Dulles
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.