Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell’s Empirical Analysis
335 U.S. 377 · 1948
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 41 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 221 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Arabian American Oil Co. (1991)
93 federal appellate · 41 district · 21 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
reviewedConnell v. Vermilya-Brown Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 202 (Bank Conservation Act) · 12 U.S.C. § 466 (§ 19 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) · 15 U.S.C. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 431 (Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 77B (§ 2 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 80A · 15 U.S.C. § 901 · 18 U.S.C. § 39
Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · United States v. Darby · Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Kirschbaum v. Walling US Arsenal Bldg Corporation · Coleman v. Miller
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 221 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e know of no more accurate phrase in common English usage than “foreign country” to denote territory subject to the sovereignty of another nation. By the exclusion of “claims arising in a foreign country,” the coverage of the Federal Tort Claims Act was geared to the sovereignty of the United States. We repeat what was said in [Vermilya-Brown: ] “The arrangements under which the leased bases were acquired from Great Britain did not and were not intended to transfer sovereignty over the leased areas from Great Britain to the United States.” Harmon Field, where this claim “arose,” remained subject to the sovereignty of Great Britain and lay within a “foreign country.” The claim must be barred.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“determination of sovereignty over an area,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States,”
2 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.