Brictson v. Woodrough’s Empirical Analysis
164 F.2d 107 · 1947
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 11 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Kenney v. Fox (1956), 202 F. Supp. 624 - Rhodes v. Houston (1962)
20 federal appellate · 11 district · 7 state decisions
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 Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Bradley v. Fisher · Cities Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap · Randall v. Brigham
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Resting on considerations of public policy to the end that the administration of justice may be independent and based on the free and unbiased convictions of the judge, uninfluenced by apprehension of personal consequences, it is a general rule that, where a judge has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person, he is not liable civilly for acts done in the exercise of his judicial function, even though he acts erroneously, illegally, or irregularly, or even corruptly." 164 F.2d 109 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]ctions to enforce corporate rights or redress injuries to [a] corporation cannot be maintained by a stockholder in his own name ... even though the injury to the corporation may incidentally result in the depreciation or destruction of the value of the stock.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, where it affirmatively appears on the face of the complaint that the action is barred by limitations, and no facts are alleged to avoid the bar of the statute, the defense may be raised by motion to dismiss.” 164 F.2d at pages 110, 111.”
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.