Parker v. Lester’s Empirical Analysis
227 F.2d 708 · 1955
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy (1961), Greene v. McElroy (1959)
41 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 50 U.S.C. § 191 (§ 1 of the Espionage Act of 1917)
Relies on Williams v. People of State of New York · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · Yakus v. United States · Texas Pacific Railway Company v. Abilene Cotton Oil Company
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[50 U.S.C. § 191 (1952)]. Whenever the President finds that the security of the United States is endangered by reason of actual or threatened war, or invasion, or insurrection, or subversive activity, or of disturbances or threatened disturbances of the international relations of the United States, the President is authorized to institute such measures and issue such rules and regulations — * * * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Graham v. Richmond“The question is: Is this system of secret informers, whisperers and talebearers of such vital importance to the public welfare that it must be preserved at the cost of denying to the citizen even a modicum of the protection traditionally associated with due process?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Angov v. Holder“Plaintiffs were able to show and did show that the defendants through the application of the alleged void and unconstitutional regulations had deprived them of employment and were threatening further to deprive them of future work as merchant seamen”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lester v. Parker
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.