Williams v. Tooke’s Empirical Analysis
108 F.2d 758 · 1940
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently August 2003 · most notably Hanna v. Home Insurance (1960), E. B. Elliott Adv. Co., Henry F. Hill, Intervenor-Appellant v. Metropolitan Dade County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida (1970)
26 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. City of Newport · American Railway Express Co. v. Kentucky · Williams v. Tooke
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If all the judgments complained of were merely erroneous that would not amount to a denial of due process of law. [Cases cited]. However, if a case between private parties is arbitrarily and capriciously decided, in violation of settled principles of law .and contrary to undisputed facts, though the court so deciding had jurisdiction over the suit, the judgment may be in violation of the 14th Amendment. [Cases cited]. But that does not help appellant in this •case. We are dealing solely with the jurisdiction of the District ■Court. The purpose of the suit is •clearly to seek a review of the decisions of the Texas courts and the reversal of those decisions for error. 'The jurisdiction of the District ■Court is strictly original. It has xio .jurisdiction to reverse or modify the judgment of a state court. The errors complained of could be reviewed ■only by the Supreme Court. [Cases ■cited]. It was the duty of the District Court to dismiss the suit. 28 U.S.C.A. § 80 . “The judgment is affirmed.” At page 759.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If all the judgments complained of were merely erroneous that would not amount to a denial of due process of law. American Railway Express Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 273 U. S. 269 , 47 S.Ct. 353 , 71 L.Ed. 639 . However, if a case between private parties is arbitrarily and capriciously decided, in violation of settled principles of law and contrary to undisputed facts, though the court so deciding had jurisdiction over the suit, the judgment may be in violation of the 14th Amendment. Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Newport, Ky., 247 U.S. 464 , 38 S.Ct. 566 , 62 L.Ed. 1215 .” Williams v. Tooke, 108 F.2d 758 , 759 (5 Cir. 1940), cert. denied 311 U.S. 655 , 61 S.Ct. 8 , 85 L.Ed. 419 (1940).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“deliberately, arbitrarily, capriciously and intentionally discriminated against plaintiff and refused to award them relief, which under the settled laws of the state they were entitled to; and further, the state ... acting by its said judicial departments, in effect took plaintiffs' said property and gave it to the defendants without consideration, and without due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reynolds v. Georgia
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.