Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 F.2d 296 - Caswell v. Morgenthau

Caswell v. Morgenthau’s Empirical Analysis

98 F.2d 296 · 1938

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
July 1977
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently July 1977 · most notably Robert I. Powell v. Eugene M. Zuckert (1966), Bailey v. Richardson (1950)

31 federal appellate · 6 district ·

16019381940195019601970decided

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 Keim v. United States · United States Arant v. Lane · Norris v. United States · Nicholas v. United States · Clark v. City of Chicago

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

  1. ““Since we may assume that the present employees in the department in question are all who are necessary to do the work, it follows that if mandamus issues some present employee must be dismissed to make room for appellant, and this we recently held in U. S. ex rel. Crow v. Mitchell, 89 F.2d 805 , 67 App.D.C. 61 , was not the function of mandamus. It is just as true that mandamus cannot be stretched to the point of requiring an executive officer of the government to reinstate a discharged employee and pay him his salary from the day of his discharge. Keim v. United States, 177 U.S. 290 , 20 S.Ct. 574 , 44 L.Ed. 774 . And it is also true that the writ cannot be used to control the supervisory powers of executive officers in the administration of their departments. Field v. Giegengack, 73 F.2d 945 , 64 App.D.C. 40 . “We prefer, however, to place our affirmance on the ground of laches. Appellant was discharged September 15, 1935. He brought his petition March 19, 1937, a little more than eighteen months after his cause of action, — if he had one — arose. * * * “The difference in the period of delay in the Arant case and this case is that one was twenty months and the other eighteen, and where the same question has arisen under more or less similar statutes in New York and other states the answer has been the same where as little as four months’ delay ensued. See People ex rel. Young v. Collis, 6 App.Div. 467 , 39 N.Y.S. 698 ; People ex rel. Croft v. Keating, 49 App. Div. 123 , 63”
    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.