Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 303 U.S. 532 - Adams v. Nagle

Adams v. Nagle’s Empirical Analysis

303 U.S. 532 · 1938

Citation profile

262
cited by 262 later decisions
16
cited 16 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
September 2006
most recently cited

92 federal appellate · 38 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 262 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2006 · most notably Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949), Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co. (1940)

92 federal appellate · 38 district · 21 state decisions

80019381940195019601970198019902000decided

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

reviewedNagle v. O'Connor (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Kennedy v. Gibson · Casey v. Galli · Bushnell v. Leland · United States v. Knox

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

  1. “If * * * he is to act in the light of the facts he ascertains and the judgment he forms, a court cannot restrain him from acting on the ground that he has exceeded his jurisdiction by reason of an error either of fact or law which induced his conclusion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It would be arbitrary, in the proper sense of the term, for an official to act in the teeth of a statute or stubbornly to refuse to act at all where a statute commands action, but where he essays to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon him, though his errors may be subject to subsequent correction, they cannot be enjoined as an arbitrary exercise of his authority. To hold otherwise would render orderly administrative procedure impossible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[p]lainly ... for the exercise of administrative discretion”
    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.