Tutun v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
270 U.S. 568 · 1926
Citation profile
243 federal appellate · 84 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 622 later decisions (59 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth (1937), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
243 federal appellate · 84 district · 39 state decisions — followed in 11 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Cohens v. Virginia · David Muskrat v. · Webster v. Fall · Salinger v. Loisel
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 622 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The opportunity to become a citizen of the United States is said to be merely a privilege and not a right. It is true that the Constitution does not confer upon aliens the right to naturalization. But it authorizes Congress to establish a uniform rule therefor. Article 1, § 8, cl. 4. The opportunity having been conferred by the Naturalization Act [ 34 Stat. 596 ], there is a statutory right in the alien to submit his petition and evidence to a court, to have that tribunal pass upon them, and, if the requisite facts are established, to receive the certificate. See United States v. Shanahan [D. C.] 232 F. 169 , 171. There is, of course, no ‘right to naturalization unless all statutory requirements are complied with.’ United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U. S. 472 , 475 [ 37 S. Ct. 422 , 61 L. Ed. 853 ]; Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 , 22 [ 34 S. Ct. 10 , 58 L. Ed. 101 ], The applicant for citizenship, like other suitors who institute proceedings in a court of justice to secure the determination of an asserted right, must allege in his petition the fulfillment of all conditions upon the existence of which the alleged right is made dependent; and he must establish these allegations by competent evidence to the satisfaction of the court. In re Bodek, 63 F. 813 , 814, 815; In re an Alien, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 137. In passing upon the application the court exercises judicial judgment. It does not confer or withhold a favor.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The [petitioner’s] claim is presented to the court in such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it.... The United States is always a possible adverse party. By § 11 of the Naturalization Act the full rights of a litigant are expressly reserved to it_ Its contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review by appeal the order or decree of the District Court denying the petition to be admitted to citizenship in the United States. ’ ’”
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.