Mitchell v. Donovan’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2003
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2403 · 28 U.S.C. § 516 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 50 U.S.C. § 841 (Communist Control Act of 1954)
Relies on Flast v. Cohen · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Dennis v. United States · Schenck v. United States · Aptheker v. Secretary of State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . He [the U.S. Attorney] urges that the Act is meant to disable the Communist Party as a party only and not its members, and he suggests that the right of plaintiffs Mitchell and Zagarell to appear on the ballot, and the right of the nominees for presidential electors to be credited with the votes cast for Mitchell and Zagarell, depend in no degree on their status as nominees of the national or local Communist Party. He argues that, as a matter of Minnesota law, Mitchell and Zagarell are entitled to stand for office because their names have been submitted in a timely petition signed by the requisite number of qualified voters, and concludes that no `right, privilege or immunity' of the Communist Party as such is involved in this lawsuit. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. (1972)“The Communist Party of the United States, or any successors of such party regardless of the assumed name . . . are not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies created under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States or any political subdivision thereof; . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. (1972)“Memorandum for the United States as Amicus Curiae”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. (1972)
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.