Pate v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
243 F.2d 99 · 1957
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 1971 · most notably Wiggins v. United States (1958), Fitts v. United States (1964)
24 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Estep v. United States · Dickinson v. United States · Witmer v. United States · Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Olberding v. Illinois Central Railroad
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Therefore here in addition to ,, . , .,, , » the non-existence m the record of , , , X1 , „ , ,, evidence to rebut the defendant s « . ,, ,, « prima facie case, there are the fur-f, ,. , , \ ther undisputed facts that the draft , , , , , , , ,. boards employed standards apphc-U1 . ... « , , , able to ministers of orthodox church- • x- j es instead of those standards fixed m the law and applicable here, and thus erroneously held: that part time secular work, from which defendant earned all his livelihood, defeated the ministerial claim; and that, because he did not earn any part of his livelihood from his ministry, he could not be regarded as a minister. * * * Nowhere in [the Act or Regulations] is there a requirement that a minister earn his livelihood from the ministry or from a particular congregation, or that he have a, pulpit before he can claim and receive classification as a minister. All that the act and regulations require in order for one to qualify as a minister and to receive the classification is that the ministry be his vocation, not an incidental thing in his life.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he board’s conclusion was reached without any evidence to sustain it; the board seemed to base its classification on the fact that the 1200 hours per year which registrant stated he was obligated to give to the ministry was all the time that he gave to it, and that this was not enough; * * * Finally, it appears beyond question from the testimony of the members of the local board, that the board did not consider the defendant’s status from the standpoint of the facts of his case as applied to the law and regulations but upon the erroneous conclusion emphasized and acted upon, that, since all of Jehovah’s Witnesses claimed to be ministers and all could not be, the claim of the registrant in this case was, on its face, fraudulent and unsound.” 243 F.2d at 102 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.