Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 345 U.S. 229 - Heikkila v. Barber

Heikkila v. Barber’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

797
cited by 797 later decisions
41
cited 41 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

373 federal appellate · 58 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 797 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967), Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Enrico St Cyr (2001)

373 federal appellate · 58 district · 29 state decisions

215019531960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Estep v. United States · Harisiades v. Shaughnessy · Bridges v. Wixon · Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board

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

  1. “the function of the [habeas] courts has always been limited to the enforcement of due process requirements,”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “clearly had the effect of precluding judicial intervention in deportation cases except insofar as it was required by the Constitution.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Each statute . . . must be examined individually; its purpose and history as well as its text are to be considered in deciding whether the courts were intended to provide relief for those aggrieved by administrative action. Mere failure to provide for judicial intervention is not conclusive; neither is the presence of language which appears to bar it.”
    5 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.