Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 F.2d 419 - Bowles v. Strickland

Bowles v. Strickland’s Empirical Analysis

151 F.2d 419 · 1945

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably Schoen v. Mountain Producers Corp. (1948), Wilson v. General Motors Corp. (1989)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

1301945195019601970198019902000decided

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 Graham v. Goodcell · Charlotte Harbor Ry Co v. Welles · Bowles v. Hasting · Downs v. Blount

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. ““As this amendment did not affect substantive rights, but related only to the procedural machinery provided to enforce such rights, it applied to pending as well as to future suits. See 50 American Jurisprudence, page 505, Section 482. A suit in process of appeal (as this one was on June 20, 1944) is a pending suit. Bowles v. Hasting, 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 94 . The necessary effect of the amendment was to authorize the prosecution of future suits under Section 205(e), and to ratify and approve the prosecution of pending suits, brought without the prior authorization of the Secretary. It is now settled that Congress has such remedial power. Charlotte Harbor & N. R. Co. v. Welles, 260 U.S. 8 , 43 S.Ct. 3 , 67 L.Ed. 100 ; Graham et al. v. Goodcell, 282 U.S. 409 , 51 S.Ct. 186 , 75 L.Ed. 415 ; Downs v. Blount, 5 Cir., 170 F. 15 , 31 L.R.A.,N.S., 1076. The judgment ap pealed from must, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded.” ( 151 F.2d 420 )”
    2 later decisions 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.