Work v. United States Rives’s Empirical Analysis
267 U.S. 175 · 1925
Citation profile
216 federal appellate · 76 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 478 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951), Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 (1937)
216 federal appellate · 76 district · 24 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes · United States v. Babcock · In re Hohorst · United States v. Schurz
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 478 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Mandamus] can not be used to compel or control a duty in the discharge of which by law [an administrative officer] is given discretion. The duty may be discretionary within limits. He can not transgress those limits, and if he does so, he may be controlled by injunction or mandamus to keep within them. The power of the court to intervene, if at all, thus depends upon what statutory discretion he has. . [The] extent [of administrative discretion] and the scope of judicial action in limiting it depend upon a proper interpretation of the particular statute and the congressional purpose.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It [the act] vested the Secretary with power to reject all losses, except as he was satisfied that they were just and equitable and it made his decision conclusive and final. Final against whom? Against the claimant. He could not resort to court to review the Secretary’s decision. This was expressly forbidden. * * * Congress was occupying toward the proposed beneficiaries of section 5 (Comp. St. § 31151ViBe) the attitude rather of a benefactor than of a debtor at law. Congress intended the Secretary to act for it, and to construe the meaning of the words used to describe the elements of the net losses to be ascertained, and to give effect to his interpretation without the intervention of the courts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“extent [of the officer's discretion] and the scope of judicial action in limiting it depend upon a proper interpretation of the particular statute and the congressional purpose.”
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.