Brown v. Cranston’s Empirical Analysis
132 F.2d 631 · 1942
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently March 2005 · most notably Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corp. (1944), Baltimore & O. R. v. Saunders (1947)
16 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc. · Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc. · Haines v. Bero Engineering Construction Corp.
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In spite of the great convenience and advantage of applying Rule 14 in the present case we feel impelled to hold that we are precluded from doing this by the interpretation of the New York statutes by its highest court,” (referring to Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc., 257 N.Y. 305 , 178 N.E. 289 , 78 A.L.R. 578 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * a defendant may move * * * for leave as a third-party plaintiff to serve a summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him ifor all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“■ “The conditions stated in this section [211-a C.P.A.] must exist before the right to contribution is given. The two or more defendants must be parties to the action at the suit of the plaintiff, and a money judgment must have been recovered jointly against them. Under such circumstances, the payment of the entire amount of the judgment by one of the judgment debtors gives him the right to collect the pro rata share from the other defendant or defendants.””
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.