Edwards v. Madigan’s Empirical Analysis
281 F.2d 73 · 1960
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2017
14 federal appellate ·
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 United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. · Burns v. Wilson · Maryland Casualty Co. v. United States · Carter v. McClaughry · Boske v. Comingore
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [Air Force] Court of Military Review in Ellenson had good reason to rely upon [AR 633-30/AFR 125-30] because in [United States v.] Bryant we had said: Secretaries of Departments may promulgate rales and regulations, and they are presumptively valid unless arbitrary and unreasonable or contrary to or inconsistent with the Code. There is nothing arbitrary and unreasonable in requiring that multiple sentences be served consecutively, and the Code does not state that a sentence once started may not be interrupted by the misdeeds of the accused.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sentences adjudged on or after 31 May 1951”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blackwell v. Edwards
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.