Dismuke v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
297 U.S. 167 · 1936
Citation profile
166 federal appellate · 42 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 391 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Arnett v. Kennedy (1974), Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951)
166 federal appellate · 42 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 10 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
reviewedUnited States v. Dismuke (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States · Brewster v. Gage · Fawcus Mach Co v. United States · United States v. Babcock · Williamsport Wire Rope Co. 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 391 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n the absence of compelling language, resort to the courts to assert a right which the statute creates will be deemed to be curtailed only so far as authority to decide is given to the administrative officer. . . . If he is authorized to determine questions of fact his decision must be accepted unless he exceeds his authority by making a determination which is arbitrary or capricious or unsupported by evidence . . ., or by failing to follow a procedure which satisfies elementary standards of fairness and reasonableness essential to the due conduct of the proceeding which Congress has authorized. . . .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The proviso withholding jurisdiction of suits on claims for pensions was a part of the original Tucker Act, which became law March 3, 1887, long before the enactment of the Retirement Act of May 22, 1920, and at a time when the term ‘pensions’ commonly referred to the gratuities paid by the government in recognition of past services in the Army or Navy. The annuities payable under the Retirement Act are not gratuities in that sense. The annuitant contributes to them by deductions from his salary or by actual payments into the fund, as in the present case, and the scheme of the Act is to provide for payment of annuities, in part at least from contributions by employees, in recognition both of their past services and of services to be performed. ’ ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 8 (a) of the Retirement Act declares that, under conditions specified, the employees ‘shall be entitled to an annuity payable from the civil-service retirement and disability fund. The provision is mandatory, expressed in terms of the right of the employee, which is inseparable from the correlative obligation of the employer, the United States. . . . the term ‘pensions’ commonly referred to the gratuities paid by the government in recognition of past services in the army or navy. The annuities payable undér the Retirement Act are not gratuitous in that sense. The annuitant contributes to them by deductions from his salary or by actual payments into the fund, as in the present case, and the scheme of the act is to provide for the payment of annuities, in p'art at least from contributions by employees, in recognition both of their past services and of services to be performed.””
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.