Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 267 F.1d 682 - Farley v. Ratliff

Farley v. Ratliff’s Empirical Analysis

267 F. 682 · 1920

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
February 1952
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1952

4 federal appellate · 3 district ·

401920193019401950decided

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 Ex Parte Milligan

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

  1. “"If, as a matter of fact, he never received, notice, and knew nothing of its issuance, Ms liability of any offense is a matter of serious doubt, and least of all could it bo said that the mailing of a notice lie did not receive, and did not know of, inducted him into the military service, and, for his fallare to respond, that he was a deserter therefrom.””
    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.