Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 F.2d 486 - Dale B. Menard v. John N. Mitchell and John Edgar Hoover

Dale B. Menard v. John N. Mitchell and John Edgar Hoover’s Empirical Analysis

430 F.2d 486 · 1970

Citation profile

166
cited by 166 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 18 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 166 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably Paul v. Davis (1976), Sullivan v. Murphy (1973)

59 federal appellate · 18 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 14 states

1090197019801990200020102020decided

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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Dombrowski v. Pfister · Van Dusen v. Barrack

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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Information denominated a record of arrest, if it becomes known, may subject an individual to serious difficulties. Even if no direct economic loss is involved, the injury to an individual’s reputation may be substantial. Economic losses themselves may be both direct and serious. Opportunities for schooling, employment, or professional licenses may be restricted or nonexistent as a consequence of the mere fact of an arrest, even if followed by acquittal or complete exoneration of the charges involved. An arrest record may be used by the police in determining whether subsequently to arrest the individual concerned, or whether to exercise their discretion to bring formal charges against an individual already arrested. Arrest records have been used in deciding whether to allow a defendant to present his story without impeachment by prior convictions, and as a basis for denying release prior to trial or an appeal; or they may be considered by a judge in determining the sentence to be given a convicted offender.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Arrests, juvenile dispositions short of an adjudication, and the like, can be extremely misleading and damaging if presented to the court as part of a section of the report which deals with past convictions. If such items should be included at all — and the Advisory Committee would not provide for their inclusion — at the very least a detailed effort should be undertaken to assure that the reader of the report cannot possibly mistake an arrest for a conviction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[A]n action against a government officer is not a suit against the United States if the action complained of is “not within the officer’s statutory powers or, if within those powers, only if the powers, or their exercise in the particular case, are constitutionally void.” (Emphasis supplied.) Menard v. Mitchell, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 113 , 430 F.2d 486 , 493 n. 36 (1970), and cases therein cited.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.