Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 F.2d 163 - Brown v. Coumanis

Brown v. Coumanis’s Empirical Analysis

135 F.2d 163 · 1943

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 1984
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1984

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

2019431950196019701980decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 52 (§ 20 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · United States v. Hutcheson · Lauf v. E. G. Shinner & Co. · Milk Wagon Drivers' Union Local No 753 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Stablemen and Helpers of America v. Lake Valley Farm Products · New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “does not undertake to establish for employers any new substantive rights, nor put within the protection of federal courts all labor disputes, even though the conditions of the Act are met. Its purpose is not to enlarge federal jurisdiction, but, in the matter of using injunctions, to restrict it____ The Norris-LaGuardia Act does not vest power in a court of the United States to do anything it could not previously have done.”
    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.