Keith v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2018
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1914 · 28 U.S.C. § 1917 · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Califano v. Sanders · Parissi v. Telechron, Inc. · Easley v. Finch · Teague v. Califano · Austin v. Reynolds Metals Company
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]ach district court ... may require advance payment of fees”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Court believes that the Parissi Supreme Court decision is properly applicable to appeals from the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1917 , and not to cases construing payment of district court fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 . We must disagree with the statement in Bolduc [ 189 F.Supp. 640 (D.Me.1960) ] that Parissi “ ‘seems clearly also to repudiate the doctrine of the Turkett and Anno cases_Bolduc, supra, at 641. Parissi in a one-page per curiam decision only held that lack of the fee with a notice of appeal did not warrant dismissal, and stated that: “ ‘Anything to the contrary in such cases as Mondakota Gas Co. v. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 9th Cir.1952, 194 F.2d 705 , we disapprove.’ ” Parissi expressly overruled cases holding that the fee is a positive prerequisite to proper “‘filing’” of an appeal, such as Mondakota, supra (notice of appeal, fee issue); Smith v. Johnston, 109 F.2d 152 (9th Cir.1940) (in for-ma pauperis, notice of appeal and fee issue); however, we feel it did not repudiate Anno v. United States, 113 F.Supp. 673 , 125 Ct.Cl. 535 (1953) (district court filing fee required to commence action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914 ); Turkett v. United States, 76 F.Supp. 769 (N.D.N. Y.1948) (district court filing fee required in advance to commence action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914 predecessor and local rule); cf. Oil Well Supply Co. v. Wickwire, 52 F.Supp. 921 (E.D.Ill.1943) (fee is condition precedent to commencement of action in Illinois state court where ad”
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.