Del Vecchio v. Bowers’s Empirical Analysis
296 U.S. 280 · 1935
Citation profile
298 federal appellate · 38 district · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 563 later decisions (39 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2014 · most notably Kent v. United States (1966), Miller v. United States (1958)
298 federal appellate · 38 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 15 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
reviewedDel Vecchio v. Bowers (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Crowell v. Benson · Voehl v. Indemnity Ins Co of North America · Von Ette's Case · Westman's Case
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 563 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i)ts only office is to control the result where there is an entire lack of competent evidence.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this chapter it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary (a) That the claim comes within the provisions of this chapter. . . .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This case involves the application of sections 3(b) and 20(d) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, to the respondent’s claim of compensation for the death of her husband, * * who died from a bullet wound inflicted while he was on duty in Del Vecchio’s store in the District of Columbia.² “2- The statute is made a workmen’s compensation law for the District of Columbia by the Act of May 17, 1928, c. 612, 45 Stat. 600 . “In the view that the case does not fall within rule 38, * * * the respondent opposed the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The objection might be valid if the statute were confined in its operation to the District of Columbia. We will not ordinarily review decisions of the United States Court of Appeals, which are based upon statutes so limited or which declare the common law of the District. The Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, however, is national in scope, and a decision with respect to its enforcement constitutes a precedent of general application. We therefore granted the writ because of the important question as to the effect of section 20(d).” (Emphasis supplied.)”
3 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.