Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 FSUPP 765 - Anderson v. Benson

Anderson v. Benson’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
13
states following
January 1980
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently January 1980 · most notably Baird v. Koerner (1960), Minichiello v. Rosenberg (1968)

22 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 13 states

2301953196019701980decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1655

Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Sutton v. English · Goodman v. Niblack · George v. Tate · Harris v. Zion's Savings Bank & Trust Co.

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

  1. ““Counsel for the defendants contend under the Treasury Regulations the form of registration of these bonds is conclusive of ownership, 31 C. F. R. (1949 Ed.) 315.2 et seq., and that this court cannot enter an order affecting either the ownership of the bonds or the proceeds received therefrom. If counsel’s construction of the regulations were accepted without qualification United States Savings Bonds would become the impenetrable sanctuary of ill-gotten gains and an excellent instrumentality for the perpetration of deliberate fraud. That Congress did not intend, in exercising its constitutional power to borrow money, to effect such a result is too clear to require discussion. See Ibey v. Ibey, 1945, 93 N. H. 434, 43 A. 2d 157 .””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * The purpose of the first sentence of Rule 26(f) is to make it perfectly clear that by merely taking a deposition before trial a party does not impose restrictions upon himself with respect to the deponent at the actual trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““A party shall not be deemed to make a person his own witness for any purpose by taking his deposition.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.