Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 F.1d 950 - United States v. Ness

United States v. Ness’s Empirical Analysis

230 F. 950 · 1916

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
October 1957
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1957

3 federal appellate · 7 district ·

8019161920193019401950decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Relies on Sawyer · Tilghman v. Proctor · Kimberly v. Arms · Luria v. United States · Sarah Boone v. William Chiles

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

  1. ““The applicant is a native of Scotland. In November, 1906, after he had reached the age of 21| years, he emigrated to the United States. He is a boiler maker by trade and found employment in Schenectady, N. X, where he resided for one year. He then moved to Pittsburgh, Pa., where he worked at his trade for one year, and in November, 1908, moved to Little Rock, Ark., where he worked in the railroad shops, intending to make that city his permanent home. In July, 1910, he visited his mother in Scotland, being out of the United States for about two months. He then returned to Little Rock, which he has claimed as his residence ever since he arrived in this state. In December, 19i0, he was employed by the Isthmian Canal Commission at the shops in Grogona within the Panama Canal Zone, having passed a satisfactory examination before his employment. He remained there four months, when he was discharged for the reason that he was not a citizen of the United States. He thereupon returned to his former home in Little Rock, Ark., where he has resided ever since. At the time he accepted employment in Panama he intended to remain there only a few months, not exceeding a year, and then return to Little Rock. “His declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States was made more than two years prior to the filing of this application. He is a man of good moral character, intelligent, thoroughly familiar with our system of government, and in every way qualified to make a good citi”
    1 later decision 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.