Leonard B. Boundin v. John Foster Dulles, John Foster Dulles v. Leonard B. Boundin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““Limitations on issuance of passports to persons supporting Communist movement. In order to promote the national interest by assuring that persons who support the world Communist movement of which the Communist Party is an integral unit may not, through use of United States passports, further the purposes of that movement, no passport, except one limited for direct and immediate return to the United States, shall be issued to: “(a) Persons who are members of the Communist Party or who have recently terminated such membership under such circumstances as to warrant the conclusion — not otherwise rebutted by the evidence — that they continue to act in furtherance of the interests and under the discipline of the Communist Party; “(b) Persons, regardless of the formal state of their affiliation with the Communist Party, who engage in activities which support the Communist movement under such circumstances as to warrant the conclusion — not otherwise rebutted by the evidence — that they have engaged in such activities as a result of direction, domination, or control exercised over them by the Communist movement. “(c) Persons, regardless of the formal state of their affiliation with the Communist Party, as to whom there is reason to believe, on the balance of all the evidence, that they are going abroad to engage in activities which will advance the Communist movement for the purpose, knowingly and wilfully of advancing that movement.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Briehl v. Dulles

2. ““ * * * since that question may arise at a subsequent stage, we think the Secretary should — if he refuses a passport * * * after the fur ther consideration we have ordered —state whether his findings are based on the evidence openly produced, or (in whole or in material part) on secret information not disclosed to the applicant. If the latter, the Secretary should explain with such particularity as in his judgment the circumstances permit the nature of the reasons why such information may not be disclosed. 4 Cf. Dulles v. Nathan, 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 190 , 225 F.2d 29 . This will facilitate the task of the courts in dealing with the question of the propriety of the Secretary’s use of confidential information — a question which, we repeat, we do not now reach.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dayton v. Dulles