Mahler v. Eby’s Empirical Analysis
264 U.S. 32 · 1924
Citation profile
300 federal appellate · 68 district · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 721 later decisions (123 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2022 · most notably Irvin v. Dowd (1961), Washington v. Davis (1976)
300 federal appellate · 68 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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 Weems v. United States · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. · United States Bilokumsky v. Tod · In re Bonner
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 721 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that deportation, while it may be burdensome and severe for the alien, is not a punishment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We need not discharge the petitioners at once because of the defective warrant [deportation-warrant]. By section 761 of the Revised Statutes * * * the duty of the court or judge in habeas corpus proceedings is prescribed as follows: ‘The court or justice or judge shall proceed in a summary way to determine the facts of the case, by hearing the testimony and arguments, and thereupon to 'dispose of the party as law and justice require.’ Under this section, this court has often delayed the discharge of the petitioner for such reasonable time as may be necessary to have him taken before the court where the judgment was rendered, that defects which render discharge necessary may be corrected” — citing In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242 , 14 S. Ct. 323 , 38 L. Ed. 149 ; In re Medley, 134 U. S. 160 , 10 S. Ct. 384 , 33 L. Ed. 835 ; Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509 , 24 L. Ed. 1118 , and other cases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pestereff v. Reed · Moore v. Zant““If any person who claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States is denied such right or privilege by any Department or agency, or executive official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person, regardless of whether he is within the United States or abroad, may institute an action against the head of such Department or agency in the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia or in the district court of the United States for the district in which such person claims a permanent residence for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States.””
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.