Mickey v. Barclay’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 672 · 10 U.S.C. § 673 · 10 U.S.C. § 673A · 10 U.S.C. § 938 · 50 U.S.C. § 3806
Relies on Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez · United States v. James Griggs Raines · Swift & Co. v. Wickham · California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding · Gutknecht 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff’s attack upon the constitutionality of § 673a on its face is plainly insubstantial and does not warrant the convening of a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2282 . See Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. Ill, 86 S.Ct. 258 , 15 L.Ed.2d 194 (1965); Schneider v. Rusk, 372 U.S. 224 , 83 S.Ct. 621 , 9 L.Ed.2d 695 (1963); California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding, 304 U.S. 252 , 58 S.Ct. 865 , 82 L.Ed. 1323 (1937). I conclude that § 673a is constitutional on its face.””
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.