Wolpe v. Poretsky’s Empirical Analysis
144 F.2d 505 · 1944
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 12 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald (1977), Nuesse v. Camp (1967)
69 federal appellate · 12 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Credits Commutation Company v. United States · Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co. · City of New York v. New York Telephone Co. · United States Casualty Co. v. Taylor · 25 F. Supp. 410 - United States v. C. M. Lane Lifeboat 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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Here at least one of the rights which cannot be protected without inter vention is the right of appeal. The court was, therefore, in error in denying appellants leave to intervene as a matter of right. * * * Adjoining property owners in a suit to vacate a zoning order have such a vital interest in the result of that suit that they should be granted permission to intervene as a matter of course unless compelling reasons against such intervention are shown.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: * * * (2) when the representation of the applicant’s interest by existing parties is or may be inadequate and the applicant is or may be bound by a judgment in the action * * *. “(b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: * * * (2) when an applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common. * * * In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘The application to intervene was timely. Intervention may be allowed after a final decree where it is necessary to preserve some right which cannot otherwise be protected. Here at least one of the rights which cannot be protected without intervention is the right of appeal. The court was, therefore, in error in denying appellants leave to intervene as a matter of right.’ (p. 144.)” (p. 27.)”
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.