Wong Ho v. Dulles’s Empirical Analysis
261 F.2d 456 · 1958
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2007
9 federal appellate · 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. § 1291 · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1503 (§ 360 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S. A. · Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · Wheeler v. United States · 30 F. Supp. 466 - Murphy v. Cady
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A physician is not incompetent to testify as an expert merely because he is not a specialist in the particular field of which he speaks.”
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.