United States v. Wiseman’s Empirical Analysis
445 F.2d 792 · 1971
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably United States v. Margiotta (1982), Slotnick v. Staviskey (1977)
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 18 U.S.C. § 3231 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Armstrong v. Manzo · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. of Bay View
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . [is guilty of an offense.]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him would be an offense against the United States is also a principal and punishable as such.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unlike most functions involved in the conduct of a lawsuit by private parties, the service of summons is essentially and traditionally a public function. . . . That the defendants sought to take advantage of their authority to perform this “act of public power” by signing blank affidavits of service without actually effecting service does not remove their activities from the “public” classification.”
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.