Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 F.2d 26 - Isaacks v. Jeffers

Isaacks v. Jeffers’s Empirical Analysis

144 F.2d 26 · 1944

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
4
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably Bomar v. Keyes (1947), American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. All American Bus Lines, Inc. (1951)

32 federal appellate · 8 district · 6 state decisions

2801944195019601970198019902000decided

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 Linn Lane Timber Company v. United States · Goldenberg v. Murphy · Reynolds v. Needle · Page v. Town of Gallup · Maier v. Independent Taxi Owner's Ass'n

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(u)pon the filing of the complaint the clerk shall forthwith issue a summons and deliver it for service to the marshal or to a person specially appointed to serve it.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The further contention is made that ■ in any event the second amended complaint stated a new cause of action against the defendant J. H. Jeffers and is clearly barred by the statute of lim- • itations. Rule 15(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that: “ ‘Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading.’ “All three pleadings centered around the same transaction — the handling and management of the RUN and PX brand of cattle. Each complaint sought an accounting from this defendant. The only difference in the three complaints was that in the first two, plaintiff also sought an accounting from others than this defendant. The claim in each complaint was asserted with respect to the same cattle and in a large part arose out of the conduct, transactions and occurrences set forth in the original complaint. We are of the opinion that the second amended complaint related back to the filing of the original complaint.” 144 F.2d at pages 28, 29.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is settled law in New Mexico that a contract, or conveyance of property, cannot be annulled without all parties to it, or their legal representatives, being parties to the action. Page v. Town of Gallup, 26 N.M. 239 , 191 P. 460 .””
    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.