Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 157 F.2d 756 - Porter v. Lux

Porter v. Lux’s Empirical Analysis

157 F.2d 756 · 1946

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
December 1979
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1979

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

201946195019601970decided

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 Hecht Co. v. Bowles · Delno v. Market St. Ry. Co. · Bowles v. Huff · Bowles v. Quon

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

  1. “58 No abuse of discretion appearing the judgment is affirmed. Id. at 758. 59 What we said there is equally applicable here. 60 We do not agree with the Commission's characterization of the injunction as a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in this situation. Id. at 757. 57 (W)e are unable to say that the District Court's action constitutes”
    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.