Isenberg v. Biddle’s Empirical Analysis
125 F.2d 741 · 1941
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corp. (1944), Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel (1978)
51 federal appellate · 3 district · 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 United States v. Lee · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · United States v. Wong Kim Ark · United States v. Wurts · United States v. San Jacinto Tin 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the last named case, Justice Douglas, speaking to the facts in that case, said that once the bill of complaint was dismissed no jurisdiction remained for any grant of relief under the cross petition. But in that case there was no jurisdictional basis for the counterclaim independent of the main action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Here there is such independent basis, and the rule is that in such circumstances, when the counterclaim seeks affirmative relief, it is sustainable without regard to what happens to the original complaint. [Citing cases.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Appellant came into court to assert a claim against the United States. It thereby submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court that complete justice might be done.”
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.