Bindczyck v. Finucane’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 12 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2019 · most notably United States v. Zucca (1956), Martinez v. Research Park, Inc. (1965)
29 federal appellate · 12 district · 9 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
reviewedFinucane v. Bindczyck (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. American Trucking Associations · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Burnet v. Harmel · Stark v. Wickard · Hanover National Bank v. Moyses
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the light of * * * (the legislative history of section 15 of the 1906 Act) we cannot escape the conclusion that in its detailed provisions for revoking a naturalization because of fraud or illegal pro curement not appearing on the face of the record, Congress formulated a self-contained, exclusive procedure. With a view to protecting the Government against fraud while safeguarding citizenship from abrogation except by a clearly defined procedure, Congress insisted on the detailed, explicit provisions of § 15. # * # “Between them, these two sections, § 11 and § 15, provided a complete and exclusive framework for safeguarding citizenship against unqualified applicants. * * * (I)f citizenship was granted, it was to be proof against attacks for fraud or illegal procurement based on evidence outside the record, except through the proceedings prescribed in § 15. The congressional scheme, providing carefully for the representation of the Government’s interest before the grant of citizenship and a detailed, safeguarded procedure for attacking the decree on evidence of fraud outside the record, covers the whole ground. * * * ” 342 U.S. at pages 83-84, 72 S.Ct. at page 134 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Due regard for § 338, including the history of its origin and for the nature of a judgment of naturalization * * * compels us to hold that § 338 is the exclusive procedure for canceling citizenship on the score of fraudulent or illegal procurement based on evidence outside the record.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““it shall be the duty of the United States district attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor * * «»”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.