Brown v. Christman’s Empirical Analysis
126 F.2d 625 · 1942
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 10 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Caperton v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal Co. (1978), Schuckman v. Rubenstein (1947)
31 federal appellate · 10 district · 19 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 Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · National Bank v. Insurance Co. · United States v. Bank of New York & Trust Co. · Payne v. Hook · Hodge v. Joy
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We note, also, the unexplained absence, as parties to this litigation, of other property owners who are entitled, presumably, equally with appellants, to participate in any proper distribution of the disputed fund.- If they are indispensable parties, it would be no sufficient answer that a decree entered in a case in which they were not parties, would, not be res judicata as to them. The facts which would be presented by these additional property owners might vary from the facts presented here. A disposition of the funds, made without giving them an opportunity to establish their claims, might be seriously prejudicial to their interests.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If they are indispensable parties it is our duty to protect their interests on this appeal, even though the question was not raised in the District Court”
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.