Dugan v. Rank’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
824 federal appellate · 578 district · 119 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,706 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978)
824 federal appellate · 578 district · 119 state decisions — followed in 23 states
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
reviewedState of California, United States of America v. Everett G. Rank (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 43 U.S.C. § 666
Relies on Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Land US v. Dollar · United States v. Causby · In Re State of New York et al Petition of Walsh et al
Cited together with Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Land US v. Dollar · Malone v. Bowdoin · Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman
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 2,706 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the judgment sought would expend itself on the public treasury or domain, or interfere with the public administration,”
119 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) action by officers beyond their statutory powers and (2) even though within the scope of their authority, the powers themselves or the manner in which they are exercised are constitutionally void.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Consent is hereby given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit.”
9 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.