Blank v. Bitker’s Empirical Analysis
135 F.2d 962 · 1943
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently December 2006 · most notably Maryhew v. Yova (1984), Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp. (1944)
38 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 195 · 28 U.S.C. § 112 · 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. · General Inv Co v. Lake Shore & M S Ry Co · Gerling v. Baltimore Ohio R Co · Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board · In re Keasbey & Mattison 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Rule 12 has abolished for the federal courts the age-old distinction between general and special appearances. A defendant need no longer appear specially to attack the court’s jurisdiction over him. He is no longer required at the door of the ■federal courthouse to intone that ancient abracadabra of the law, de bene esse, in order by its magic power to enable himself to remain outside even while he steps within. He may now enter openly in full confidence that he will mot -thereby be giving up any keys to "the courthouse door which he possessed before he came in. This, of course, is not to say that such keys must not be used promptly. If the defense of lack of jurisdiction of the person is not raised by motion before answer or in the answer itself it is by the express terms of paragraph (h) of Civil Procedure Rule 12 to be treated as waived, not because of the defendant’s voluntary appearance but because of his failure to assert the defense within the time prescribed by the rules. We conclude that within the time allowed for serving the answer the defendant may assert this defense unless he has waived it by some action other than his voluntary appearance. In so holding we are in accord with the decisions of other courts which have considered the question.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coopersmith v. Stein““All process other than a subpoena may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state in which the district court is held and, when a statute of the United States so provides, beyond the territorial limits of that state. * * * ” (Italics supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]here is no requirement in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to filing. . . . And Rule 5(d) permits filing with the court within a reasonable time after service.”
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.