Lookman v. Lang’s Empirical Analysis
132 F. 1 · 1904
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 1965 · most notably United States v. Pfister (1953), Niresk Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1960)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Fred Bardes v. First National Bank of Hawarden Iowa · Draper v. Davis · Plymouth Consolidated Gold Min Co v. · Sage v. Railroad Co. · Jacobs v. George
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A citation to appear at the hearing in the appellate court is not jurisdictional in its nature. Its only purpose is to give notice to the appellees that the appeal will be prosecuted, so that they may appear and have a hearing if they desire. It is a part of the procedure prescribed not to give jurisdiction to the appellate court, but to secure to the appellees a fair opportunity to present to that court their arguments in support of the decision below. If, through accident or mistake, the citation has been omitted, and no notice has been given to the appellees of the hearing, the appellate court has ample power to direct its issue and to continue the case until reasonable notice of the hearing has been given. But it may not dismiss an appeal, which is a matter of right, and which is duly allowed by the trial court by the mere acceptance of security for its prosecution (Simpson v. First National Bank [C. C. A.] 129 F. 257 , 260), until an opportunity to give the requisite notice has been furnished, whether the application for the citation is made before or after the statutory time for the appeal has elapsed (Dodge v. Knowles, 114 U. S. 436 , 438, 5 S. Ct. 1108 , 29 L. Ed. 144 [296]; Hewitt v. Filbert, 116 U. S. 142 , 144, 6 S. Ct. 319 , 29 L. Ed. 581 ; Mattingly v. Railroad Co., 158 U. S. 53 , 56, 15 S. Ct. 725 , 39 L. Ed. 894 ; Evans v. State Bank, 134 U. S. 330 , 331, 10 S. Ct. 493 , 33 L. Ed. 917 ; Altenberg v. Grant, 28 C. C. A. 244 , 246, 83 F. 980 , 982; Railroad Equip”
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.