Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 366 F.2d 634 - Robert I. Powell v. Eugene M. Zuckert

Robert I. Powell v. Eugene M. Zuckert’s Empirical Analysis

366 F.2d 634 · 1966

Citation profile

188
cited by 188 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 29 district · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 188 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably United States v. Janis (1976), United States v. Williams (1980)

69 federal appellate · 29 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 14 states

770196619701980199020002010decided

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 Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Boyd v. United States · Greene v. McElroy · Marron v. United States · Gouled v. United States

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

  1. ““The defense of laches stems from the principle that ‘equity aids the vigilant, and not those who slumber on their rights,’ and is designed to promote diligence and prevent enforcement of stale claims.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “When a public official is unlawfully removed from office, ... obvious considerations of public policy make it of first importance that he should promptly take the action requisite to effectively assert his rights, to the end that if his contention be justified the Government service may be disturbed as little as possible and that two salaries shall not be paid for a single service. _[T]he relator did nothing to effectively assert his claim for reinstatement to office for almost two years. Such a long delay must necessarily result in changes in the branch of the service to which he was attached and in such an accumulation of unearned salary that, when unexplained, the manifest inequity which would result from reinstating him renders the application of the doctrine of laches to his case peculiarly appropriate in the interests of justice and sound public policy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It would seem wholly at odds with our traditions to allow the admission of evidence illegally seized by Government agents in discharge proceedings, which the Court has analogized to proceedings that ‘involve the imposition of criminal sanctions * * *.’ Peters v. Hobby, 349 U.S. 331, 344 , 75 S.Ct. 790, 797 , 99 L.Ed 1129 (1955); . . . ” at 640.”
    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.