Leonhard v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
473 F.2d 709 · 1973
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2010 · most notably Billiteri v. United States Board of Parole (1976), Leonhard v. United States (1980)
24 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Dugan v. Rank · White 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clear constitutional right to custody or visitation rights,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““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.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Kennelly arranged to secrete Rochelle and the children at the specific request of Pascal Calabrese. At that time-February, 1968-Rochelle had legal custody of the children and believed that their safety from threatened violence required that they no longer be visited by their natural father. Information received by Strike Force officials concerning a “murder contract” placed on the heads of the Cala-breses confirmed their initial fears. Ken-nelly’s present refusal to disclose the loca tion of Calabrese family is grounded in his sense of obligation to them, both because of his agreement never to disclose their location and of his continued belief that the lives of the children and Rochelle and Pascal would be endangered if this information should become known. In view of the circumstances, we could hardly dismiss this latter fear as groundless or irrational.”
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.