Smith v. Resor’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.2d 141 · 1969
Citation profile
106 federal appellate · 25 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 199 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Mindes v. Seaman (1971), Strait v. Laird (1972)
106 federal appellate · 25 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · Service v. Dulles · Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Kadrie · Yellin v. United States · International Products Corp. v. Koons
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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“§ 938. Art. 138. Complaints of wrongs "Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon. Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, 70A Stat. 78.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * a federal court may properly examine the decision to call a reservist for active duty in order to determine if the reservist’s procedural rights under the applicable statutes and military procedures and regulations were violated in a manner which caused substantial prejudice to the reservist. This does not involve any undue interference with the proper and efficient operation of our military forces because we require only that the Army carry out the procedures and regulations it created itself.””
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.