Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 U.S. 442 - Miguel v. McCarl

Miguel v. McCarl’s Empirical Analysis

291 U.S. 442 · 1934

Citation profile

206
cited by 206 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 36 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 206 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Carter v. Seamans (1969), O'Connor v. Rhodes (1935)

81 federal appellate · 36 district · 24 state decisions

500193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedMcCarl v. Miguel (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Webster v. Fall · United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co. · Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Kadrie · Roberts v. United States · Warner Valley Stock Company v. Smith

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

  1. “[E]very ... statute to some extent requires construction by the officer; that he must read the law and, therefore, in a certain sense, construe it in order to form a judgment from its language what duty he is required to perform. “But that does not necessarily and in all cases make the duty of the officer anything other than a purely ministerial one. If the law direct [sic] him to perform an act in regard to which no discretion is committed to him, and which, upon the facts existing, he is bound to perform, then the act is ministerial, although depending upon a statute which requires, in some degree, a construction of language by the officer. Unless this be so, the value of this writ is greatly impaired.” This view of the matter has been uniformly approved in subsequent opinions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t also is employed to compel action, when refused, in matters involving judgment and discretion, but not to direct the exercise of judgment or discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “in effect equivalent to a writ of mandamus, and governed by like considerations”
    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.