Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 327 U.S. 678 - Bell v. Hood

Bell v. Hood’s Empirical Analysis

327 U.S. 678 · 1946

Citation profile

8,691
cited by 8,691 later decisions
211
cited 211 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

3,442 federal appellate · 1,137 district · 123 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8,691 later decisions (211 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Brady v. State of Maryland (1963), Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York (1978)

3,442 federal appellate · 1,137 district · 123 state decisions — followed in 28 states

1.9k0194619501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedBell v. Hood (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 8 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on William Marbury v. James Madison · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Burdeau v. McDowell · Hurn v. Oursler

Cited together with Hagans v. Lavine · Monroe v. Pape · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Conley v. Gibson

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 8,691 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.”
    476 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of two elements: (1) that the act or omission deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and (2) that the act or omission was done by a person acting under color of law.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In other words, if this action may be maintained without the determination of a federal question, then this Court has no jurisdiction, since the action has a sufficient non-federal foundation to support it. To summarize, to give this Court jurisdiction, (a) this action must be founded upon a claim or right arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States; (b) it must be such that the construction or interpretation of the Constitution or a federal statute will support or defeat the action depending upon the construction or interpretation given by the Court on the trial of the action; (c) a genuine and present controversy must exist as to the construction or interpretation of the Constitution or of a statute of the United States; (d) the controversy must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or petition for removal.””
    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.