Schilling v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
182 federal appellate · 128 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 572 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe (1971), Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Inc v. B Camp Barlow (1970)
182 federal appellate · 128 district · 4 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
reviewedRogers v. Schilling (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 5 U.S.C. § 1009 · 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (§ 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · Greene v. McElroy · Leedom v. Kyne · National Labor Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc.
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 572 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is not an independent source of federal jurisdiction.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the availability of [declaratory] relief presupposes the existence of a judicially remediable right.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The conclusion which the history of § 32 impels is confirmed by the text of the section and other provisions of the Act. The absence of any provision for recourse to the courts in connection with § 32(a) return claims contrasts strongly with the care that Congress took to provide for and limit judicial remedies with respect to other aspects of the section and other provisions of the Act. See, e. g., §§ 32(d), 32(e), 32(f), 33, 34(e), 34(f), 34(i). It is not of moment that these provisions concerned direct judicial relief, and not court review of denials of administrative relief. The point is that in this Act, Congress was advertent to the role of courts, and an absence in any specific area of any kind of provision for judicial participation strongly indicates a legislative purpose that there be no such participation. Beyond this, the permissive terms in which the § 32 return provisions are drawn (ante, p. 667, 88 S.Ct. 1290 ) persuasively indicate that their administration was committed entirely to the discretionary judgment of the Executive branch ‘without the intervention of the courts.’ ””
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.