Mulloy v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
508 federal appellate · 84 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 762 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably McGee v. United States (1971), Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus (1971)
508 federal appellate · 84 district · 12 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
reviewedUnited States v. Mulloy (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Clark v. Gabriel · United States v. Sisson · Miller 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 762 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“applicant asserts a prima facie claim for such status if he makes nonfrivolous allegations 'that, if true, would be sufficient under regulation or statute to warrant granting the requested reclassification....'”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the classification of a registrant shall not be reopened after the local board has mailed to such registrant an Order to Report for Induction * * * unless the local board first specifically finds there has been a change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Though the language of 32 C. F.R. Sec. 1625.2 is permissive, it does not follow that a board may arbitrarily refuse to reopen a registrant's classification . . . . [W]here the registrant has set out new facts that establish a prima facie case for a new classification, a board must reopen to determine whether he is entitled to that classification. Not to do so . . . is an abuse of discretion.”
4 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.