Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F.2d 796 - Hurwitz v. Hurwitz

Hurwitz v. Hurwitz’s Empirical Analysis

136 F.2d 796 · 1943

Citation profile

148
cited by 148 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

91 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 148 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover (1959), Securities and Exchange Commission v. Martin Frank, and Nylo-Thane Plastics Corp., Maurice Minuto, Olanda Minuto, Louis Braunston, Leonard Freedman (1968)

91 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 15 states

52019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co. · James Sackley Company v. United States · United States v. Forness · Keys 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(i)n cases where the record is so clear that the court (of appeals) does not need the aid of findings it may waive such a defect on the ground that the error is not substantial in the particular case.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We were, at the outset, somewhat concerned about the failure of the district judge to make separate and detailed findings of fact. It would have been better to have done so and our study of the record would have been simplified had we had such findings. An examination of the decree, however, discloses findings of ultimate facts which, upon careful consideration of the record, obviously adjudicates the controlling issues * * * We think, in view of Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., that we are justified in considering the appeal without remanding the case for more specific findings and so to save delay in adjudication.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The mandate should not be for a new trial but to require the trial court to make independent findings of fact and enter judgment in accordance with those findings.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.