Spring v. Ohio Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
108 F.2d 560 · 1940
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 1969
19 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Seeley v. Cornell · Lea v. Vasco Products, Inc. · Colquitt v. Roxana Petroleum Corp. · Eppenauer v. Ohio Oil Co. · Roxana Petroleum Corp. v. Colquitt
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The case is not here on the merits and the sole question presented for decision is whether the District Judge abused his discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction. Lea v. Vasco Products, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 1011 . Of course, in deciding that question we may consider whether the court was without jurisdiction.””
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.