Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 F.2d 1140 - King v. Morton

King v. Morton’s Empirical Analysis

520 F.2d 1140 · 1975

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
June 2020
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 17 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Ralpho v. Bell (1977), Sellers v. J O'Connell (1983)

25 federal appellate · 17 district ·

290197519801990200020102020decided

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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Younger v. Harris · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Carafas v. J

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

  1. “Here, the sole defendant is the Secretary of the Interior, and the issue is whether he has administered the government of American Samoa in accordance with the requirements of the United States Constitution. Clearly, the Secretary is within the geographical jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and that court is competent to judge the Secretary’s administration of the government of American Samoa by constitutional standards, and if necessary, to order the Secretary to take appropriate measures to correct any constitutional deficiencies.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “although it is not clear just how to do so. In the absence of any statutory rule to the contrary, it is arguable that the United States Supreme Court has the power to review, by writ of certiorari or otherwise, a final judgment of the Appellate Division of the High Court on a question of federal law. See U.S. Constitution art. Ill § 2 (”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under . . . the Laws of the United States . . . . In all [such] Cases . . . the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
    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.