Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 U.S. 394 - United States v. Royer

United States v. Royer’s Empirical Analysis

268 U.S. 394 · 1925

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 6 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2013 · most notably Stearns Co of Boston Mass v. United States (1934), Pan American Petroleum & Transport Co. v. United States (1927)

42 federal appellate · 6 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 10 states

4801925193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Norton v. Shelby County · State v. Carroll · Albert Waite v. City of Santa Cruz · Nofire v. United States

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

  1. ““ ‘A de facto officer may be defined as one whose title is not good in law, but who is in fact in the unobstructed possession of an office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper.’ A shorter definition is that of the Supreme Court of Kansas: * * • * ‘A de facto officer is one who is surrounded with the insignia of office, and seems to act with authority.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We need not determine whether respondent might have maintained an action against the government for unpaid salary; but, clearly, the money having been paid for services actually rendered in an office held de facto, and the government presumably having benefited to the extent of the payment, in equity and good conscience he should not be required to refund it. 268 U.S. at 398 , 45 S.Ct. at 520 .”
    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.