Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
270 federal appellate · 78 district · 387 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,097 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Liteky et al United States (1994), Heckler v. Chaney (1985)
270 federal appellate · 78 district · 387 state decisions — followed in 36 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 528 · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 212 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 9 · 29 U.S.C. § 9A · 5 U.S.C. § 5332 (Federal Salary Act of 1967) · 5 U.S.C. § 554 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Vaca v. Sipes · Berger v. United States · Carey v. Piphus
Cited together with Tumey v. State of Ohio · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Ward v. Village of Monroeville · Withrow v. Larkin · Mathews v. Eldridge
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 1,097 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases.”
90 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“scheme injecting a personal interest, financial or otherwise, into the enforcement process may bring irrelevant or impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision and in some contexts raise serious constitutional questions.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“limits there may be on a financial or personal interest of one who performs a prosecutorial function.”
6 later decisions 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.