United States v. Zazove’s Empirical Analysis
334 U.S. 602 · 1948
Citation profile
161 federal appellate · 10 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 252 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1995 · most notably Spiegel's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1949), Sylvia H. Thompson v. Clark M. Clifford, as Secretary of Defense (1968)
161 federal appellate · 10 district · 11 state decisions
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
reviewedZazove v. United States (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 512
Relies on Lynch v. United States · Johnson v. Stevenson · Aschenbrenner v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. · Manufacturers' Accident Indemnity Co. v. Dorgan
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 252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Except in the event of suit as provided in Section 617 [now Section 784] hereof, or other appropriate court proceedings, all decisions rendered by the Administrator under the provisions of this Act, or regulations properly issued pursuant thereto, shall be final and conclusive on all questions of law or fact, and no other official of the United States, except a judge or judges of United States courts, shall have jurisdiction to review any such decisions.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the beneficial purposes that Congress had in mind.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is an expression of legislative intent rather than the embodiment of an agreement between Congress and the insured person. Only the intent of Congress, which in this case is the insurer, need be ascertained to fix the meaning of the statutory terms; the layman understanding of the policy holder does not have the relevance here that it has in the construction of a commercial contract.”
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.