Snyder v. Buck’s Empirical Analysis
340 U.S. 15 · 1950
Citation profile
131 federal appellate · 16 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 206 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2013 · most notably Mosser v. Darrow (1951), Smuck v. Hobson (1969)
131 federal appellate · 16 district · 22 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
reviewedBuck v. Snyder (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2105
Relies on Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins · Keifer v. Reconstruction Finance Corp. · Tait v. Western Maryland Railway Co. · Ex parte Republic of Peru
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 206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(d) Public Officers; Death or Separation from Office. “When an officer of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, a territory, an insular possession, a state, county, city, or other governmental agency, is a party to an action and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action may be continued and maintained by or against his successor, if within 6 months after the successor takes office it is satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need for so continuing and maintaining it. Substitution pursuant to this rule may be made when it is shown by supplemental pleading that the successor of an officer adopts or continues or threatens to adopt or continue the action of his predecessor in enforcing a law averred to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Before a substitution is made, the party or officer to be affected, unless expressly assenting thereto, shall be given reasonable notice of the application therefor and accorded an opportunity to object. As amended Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a necessity for the survival thereof to obtain a settlement of the questions involved”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Where, during the pendency of an action, suit, or other proceeding brought by or against an officer of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, or the Canal Zone, or of a Territory or an insular possession of the United States, or of a county, city, or other governmental agency of such Territory or insular possession, and relating to the present or future discharge of his official duties, such officer dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold such office, it shall be competent for the court wherein the action, suit, or proceeding is pending, whether the court be one of first instance or an appellate tribunal, to permit the cause to be continued and maintained by or against the successor in office of such officer, if within six months after his death or separation from the office it be satisfactorily shown to the court that there is a substantial need for so continuing and maintaining the cause and obtaining an adjudication of the questions involved.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Acheson v. Furusho
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.