Low Wah Suey v. Backus’s Empirical Analysis
225 U.S. 460 · 1912
Citation profile
275 federal appellate · 93 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 473 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2008 · most notably Helvering v. Mitchell (1938), Landon v. Plasencia (1982)
275 federal appellate · 93 district · 8 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
Relies on Wong Wing v. United States · United States v. Ju Toy · Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Taggart · Chin Yow v. United States · United States v. Kirby
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 473 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A series of decisions in tbis court has settled that such bearings before executive officers may be made conclusive when fairly conducted. In order to successfully attack by judicial proceedings tbe conclusions and orders made upon such bearings, it must be shown that tbe proceedings were manifestly unfair, that tbe action of tbe executive officers was sitcli as to prevent a fair investigation, or that there was a manifest abuse of tbe discretion committed to them by the statute. In other cases tbe order of tbe executive officers within the authority of tbe statute is final. United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253 ; Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8 ; Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673 .””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Considering the summary character of the hearing provided by statute and the rights given to counsel in the rules prescribed, we are not prepared to say that the rules are so arbitrary and so manifestly intended to deprive the alien of a fair, though summary, hearing as to be beyond the power of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor under the authority of the statute.” Low Wah Suey v. Backus, supra, 225 U. S. 472 , 32 Sup. Ct. 737 , 56 L. Ed. 1165 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This objection, in substance, is that, under examination before the inspection officer, at first she had no counsel. Such an examination is within the authority of the statute, and it is not denied that at subsequent stages of the proceedings and before the hearing was closed or the orders were made she had the assistance and advice of counsel.”
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.