Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 F.2d 384 - Haven v. United States

Haven v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

403 F.2d 384 · 1968

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
January 1984
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 1984 · most notably Simmons v. United States (1969), United States v. Lloyd (1970)

25 federal appellate · 1 district ·

230196819701980decided

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

Applies 50 U.S.C. § 3809

Relies on Bolling v. Sharpe · Avery v. State of Georgia · United States v. Nugent · Olender v. United States · Parrott 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “While this may dispose of the appeal, we prefer to rest our decision on a broader ground. We find no support in administrative law or in constitutional law for a contention that the composition of the membership of an administrative board * * * may be attacked by showing that certain groups or classes of persons, racial, religious or otherwise, have never been privileged to serve on such board. ****** [I]f the local board members have been appointed by the President upon the recommendation of the Governor, and each member meets the requirements of the law and regulations, no further attack upon the composition of the board may be entertained. [Emphasis added].”
    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.