Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 344 U.S. 133 - Mandoli v. Acheson

Mandoli v. Acheson’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

130
cited by 130 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

75 federal appellate · 20 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 130 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Nishikawa v. Dulles (1958), Rogers v. Bellei (1971)

75 federal appellate · 20 district · 3 state decisions

100019521960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedMandoli v. Acheson (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on McGrath v. Kristensen · Perkins v. Elg · Kawakita v. United States · Public Service Commission v. Wycoff Co.

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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““What it [Perkins v. Elg] held was that citizenship conferred by our Constitution upon a child born under its protection cannot be forfeited because the citizen during nonage is a passive beneficiary of foreign naturalization proceedings. It held that Miss Elg had acquired a derivative dual-citizenship but had not suffered a derivative expatriation. In affirming her right to return to and remain in this country, it did not hold that it was mandatory for her to do so.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The Nationality Act of 1940, though not controlling here, shows the consistency of congressional policy not to subject a citizen by birth to the burden and hazard of election at majority. This comprehensive revision and codification of the laws relating to citizenship and nationality was prepared at the request of Congress by the Departments of State, Justice and Labor. The State Department proposed a new provision requiring an American-born national taken during minority to the country of his other nationality to make an election and to return to the United States, if he elected American nationality, on reaching majority. The Departments of Justice and Labor were opposed and, as a consequence, it was omitted from the proposed bill. This disagreement between the Departments was called to the attention of the Congress. While in some other respects Congress enlarged the grounds for loss of nationality, it refused to require a citizen by nativity to elect between dual citizenships upon reaching a majority.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he dignity of citizenship which the Constitution confers as a birthright upon every person born within its protection is not to be withdrawn or extinguished by the courts except pursuant to a clear statutory mandate.”
    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.