United States v. Oddo’s Empirical Analysis
314 F.2d 115 · 1963
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2014 · most notably Fedorenko v. United States (1981), Legille v. Dann (1976)
19 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 8 U.S.C. § 1451 (§ 340 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Costello v. United States · Schneiderman v. United States · Baumgartner v. United States · Chaunt v. United States · Arens v. Village of Rogers
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant advances two arguments which seek to mitigate the significance of his failure to disclose his record of arrests. The first, based upon the in banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in United States v. Kessler, 213 F.2d 53 (3 Cir., 1954), is that the duty of an applicant for naturalization to disclose his record of arrests does not include an obligation to disclose ‘false arrests.’ Although the Kessler case so held, it did so in a factual situation importantly different from the present. The applicant in that case had been arrested seventeen times for obstructing the highway, a crime ‘unknown to the law of Pennsylvania,’ 213 F.2d at 56 , and had been discharged each time by the same magistrate who had each time informed her ‘that she had committed no crime cognizable at law.' Id. at 58 . These circumstances were held to preclude a finding that the applicant had denied her record of arrests with knowledge that her denial was false and in a willful and deliberate attempt to deceive the Government. Assuming in appellant’s favor that Kessler was correctly decided, Od-do’s assertion that his arrests were either of a trivial nature or the result of arbitrary action by the police does not bring him within its rationale; he has presented no evidence that he was arrested for crimes which do not exist.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Monter v. Gonzales“ ‘carries a heavy burden of proof in a proceeding to divest a naturalized citizen of his citizenship.’ Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 , 269, 81 S.Ct. 534 , 5 L.Ed.2d 551 (1961). The evidence justifying divestment must be ‘clear, unequivocal, and convincing’ and not leave ‘the issue * * * in doubt.’ Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 , 125, 158, 63 S.Ct. 1333 , 87 L.Ed. 1796 (1943).”
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.