Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 F.2d 594 - Hale v. Campbell

Hale v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

127 F.2d 594 · 1942

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
June 1970
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1970

4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

401942195019601970decided

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. § 118 · 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · People's Bank v. Calhoun · Commonwealth Trust Company of Pittsburg v. Smith · Sioux City Terminal Railroad & Warehouse Co. v. Trust Co. of North America

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

  1. ““ * * * The Supreme Court gave its definition of indispensable parties in Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. [129] 130, 139, 58 U.S. [129] 130, 15 L.Ed. 158 (and we know of none in conflict), as: ‘Persons who not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But the plaintiff endeavored to litigate the claims presented by his complaint in the State court in the will contest case to which he was a party and that court, at the instance of these defendants, relegated the plaintiff to a separate action. The Iowa court may not in the exercise of probate jurisdiction try title to real or personal property involved in probate proceedings. ’ ’”
    1 later decision 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.