Adams v. Witmer’s Empirical Analysis
271 F.2d 29 · 1958
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. John H. Shaffer, Administrator (Acting) of the Federal Aviation Administration (1970), WPC Enterprises Inc. v. United States (1963)
52 federal appellate · 12 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · United States v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. · Leedom v. Kyne · Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath · Morgan 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the requirements of due process necessitate that he have a hearing before he can be deprived of that property right.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * Thus § 10(e) provides that the court, on review shall ‘(B) hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; * * * (3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; * * * (5) unsupported by substantial evidence in any case subject to the requirements of sections 7 and 8 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; * * * In making the foregoing determinations the court shall review the whole record or such portions thereof as may be cited by any party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.’ ” (Footnote 15 omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The immediate relief which appellant sought in his proceeding was an injunction again (sic) Berriman who threatened to take possession of the appellant’s mining claims and the structures and buildings thereon. Additional relief is sought against the defendant Witmer, the local manager of the Los Angeles Land Office who, it was alleged, threatened to cancel appellant’s mining claims and mineral entries on the records of the Land Office. No prayer was included for the issuance of a patent or for any other relief which would require action by the Secretary.” (Emphasis added.) 271 F.2d at 35.”
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.