In re Barbara’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2001
2 federal appellate · 2 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 United States v. Bryan · Hiller v. . B. and M.R.R.R. Co. · Levine v. National Transportation Co. · Schenkman v. Schenkman
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A subpoena has never been treated as an invitation to a game of hare and hounds, in which the witness must testify only if cornered at the end of the chase. If that were the case, then, indeed, the great power of testimonial compulsion, so necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures, would be a nullity.” United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 331 , 70 S.Ct. 724, 730 , 94 L.Ed. 884 , 891 (1950).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Counts“the circumstances [are] such as to show that the [recipient] did not come into actual possession of the papers and that his attention was not drawn to their character, or that he had not willfully ignored them and refused to ascertain their nature for the purpose of evading service.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dale v. Hahn
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.