Thomson v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis
136 F.2d 644 · 1943
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 1990 · most notably Iowa Public Service Co. v. Medicine Bow Coal Co. (1977), Universal Underwriters Insurance v. Wagner (1966)
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Mooney v. Holohan · City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York · Pyle v. State of Kansas · Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co. · James Sackley Company v. United States
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... For purposes of testing the jurisdiction of a federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, it is immaterial how the parties may have been designated in the pleadings, since the court must align them for jurisdictional purposes on the basis of their actual legal interests and the apparent results to them if the object sought to be accomplished by the litigation is successful."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Unless any person interested in the probate of a will appears within six months after the date of the probate or rejection thereof by the probate division of the circuit court, or within six months after the first publication of notice of granting of letters on the estate of the decedent, whichever is later, and, by petition filed with the clerk of the circuit court of the county, contests the validity of a probated will, or prays to have a will probated which has been rejected by the probate division of the circuit court, then probate or rejection of the will is binding.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Danforth v. Danforth“But the Missouri cases clearly establish, as we have suggested, that, in a proceeding brought by an heir-at-law to contest the validity of a will, the other heirs-at-law are not necessary. parties, and the question of the validity of the service upon them is therefore immaterial. Ehrlich v. Mittelberg, 299 Mo. 284 , 252 S.W. 671 ; Kischman v. Scott, 166 Mo. 214 , 65 S.W. 1031 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cool v. Reed
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.