Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 425 F.2d 504 - James R. Nestor v. Lewis B. Hershey

James R. Nestor v. Lewis B. Hershey’s Empirical Analysis

425 F.2d 504 · 1969

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
March 2016
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 21 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Starnes v. McGuire (1974), Lamont v. Haig (1978)

69 federal appellate · 21 district ·

890196919701980199020002010decided

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 v. United Mine Workers of America · Estep v. United States · Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11 · Abel v. United States · Simmons 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “satisfactorily pursuing a full-time course of instruction at a college, university, or similar institution,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a] civil action in which a defendant is an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof acting in his official capacity or under color of legal authority, or an agency of the United States, or the United States, may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought in any judicial district in which (1) a defendant in the action resides, (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred ... or (3) the plaintiff resides if no real property is involved in the action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “* * * [T]he 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.”
    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.