Rowoldt v. Perfetto’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
128 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 210 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Woodby v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (1966), Scales v. United States (1961)
128 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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
reviewedRowoldt v. Perfetto (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1182 (§ 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (§ 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Harisiades v. Shaughnessy · Galvan v. Press · Ng Fung Ho v. White · Railway Employes' Department v. Hanson · Anderson v. Wilson
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 210 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“solidity of proof that is required for a judgment entailing the consequences of deportation, particularly in the case of an old man who has lived in this country for forty years.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the Communist Party, that he was a member of the Party's Michigan District Committee and District Bureau, that he was a delegate to national and Michigan conventions of the Party in 1934, and that he was a candidate for public office in Michigan on the Communist Party ballot. There was thus a substantial basis for finding that he committed himself to the Communist Party in consciousness that he was”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) That the respondent is an alien, a native of Tahiti and citizen or subject of France; “(2) That the respondent entered the United States at San Francisco, Cilifornia, on August 9, 1924, as a seaman on the S.S. Maunganui; “(3) That the respondent at the time of such entry was admitted temporarily for shore leave only but has continued to thereafter maintain his residence in the United States; “(4) That the respondent was made the subject of deportation proceedings on November 18, 1938, for the reason that he had not been admitted into the United States for permanent residence as an alien; “(5) That the respondent as the result of such proceedings was accorded the privilege of pre-examination and voluntary departure so that he could adjust his status to that of a permanent resident by obtaining an immigration visa at an American Consulate in Canada; “(6) That the respondent did proceed to Canada and last entered the United States for permanent residence at Detroit, Michigan, on May 13, 1940; “(7) That the respondent after entry into the United States in 1924 became a voluntary member of the Communist Party of the United States in about 1936 and continued his membership therein until at least sometime in 1938 or 1939. “Conclusions of Law: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded: “ (1) That under the Act of October 16, 1918, as amended, the respondent is subject to deportation on the ground that he was, after entry, a member of the following class, ”
1 later decision 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.