Mitchell v. Greenough’s Empirical Analysis
100 F.2d 184 · 1938
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1994 · most notably Monroe v. Pape (1961), Stefanelli v. Minard (1951)
42 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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
Relies on Mooney v. Holohan · Brown v. State of Mississippi · Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. · Wood v. Carpenter · O'Sullivan v. Felix
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The conspiracy charged is claimed to come under the provisions of the federal statutes ( 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 43 , 47 [now 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983 , 1985], supra). We pause here to observe that the right to practice law in the state court has been held by the Supreme Court not to be a privilege granted by the Federal Constitution or laws. * * ” (Citation in brackets ours.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mason v. Hitchcock · Sharp v. Lucky““Appellant was subject to no greater hazard than any other individual in the state, namely, the hazard of being prosecuted for a crime and convicted by false testimony.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) * * * (2) If two or more persons * * * conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully * * * or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court * * * or if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice * * * with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws; (3) If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire * * * for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws * * *. [I]n any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or pr”
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.