Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 F.1d 391 - In re Holmes

In re Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

142 F. 391 · 1905

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
November 1935
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1935

10 federal appellate · 2 district ·

901905191019201930decided

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 Central Trust Co. Of New York v. Grant Locomotive Works (Two Cases) · Ensminger v. Powers · Thomas v. Gabrielle Brockenbrough · In re Rouse, Hazard & Co. · In re Plymouth Cordage 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “has resulted in such contrariety of decision relative to the proper method of review of spe- • cific orders and such Confusion and uncertainty in the practice that it has become necessary for lawyers in many instances to take an appeal and file a petition for revision in the same case in order to be sure to obtain a review of the ruling challenged. . . . Moreover, ... a large share of the time and labor of the judges of the courts of appeals, and of the lawyers who assist them, and no insignificant portion of the means of the litigants, all of which are imperatively demanded for the decision of the merits of the questions the parties seek to present, or of still more important issues of law, are. cpnsuined in the litigation, determination, and preparation of opinions concerning the question whether an order or proceeding hi bankruptcy which is clearly reviewable must be reviewed by appeal or by petition for revision.”
    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.