Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 F.2d 223 - Young v. Garrett

Young v. Garrett’s Empirical Analysis

149 F.2d 223 · 1945

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2007 · most notably Caperton v. Beatrice Pocahontas Coal Co. (1978), Peters v. Lines (1960)

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

1501945195019601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Mechanical Appliance Co. v. Castleman · Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co. · Brown v. Fletcher · N. & G. Taylor Co. v. Anderson · United States v. Washington Institute of Technology, Inc.

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

  1. “When the assignment [of the thing in action] is not authorized by statute, the assignor must be a party as plaintiff or defendant.”
    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.