Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 F.2d 513 - Kass v. Baskin

Kass v. Baskin’s Empirical Analysis

164 F.2d 513 · 1947

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
December 2008
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2008 · most notably Pernell v. Southall Realty (1974), United States v. Seigel (1948)

8 federal appellate · 5 district · 18 state decisions

1001947195019601970198019902000decided

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 Yakus v. United States · Aetna Ins Co Kennedy Bogash Springfield Fire Marine Ins Co v. Same Liverpool & London & Globe Ins Co Limited · Capital Traction Co. v. Hof · Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. United States · American Mills Co. v. American Surety 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The non-amenability of the problem to rule, because of the diffuseness of circumstances, novelty, vagueness, or similar reasons that argue for allowing experience to develop, appears to be a sound reason for conferring discretion on the magistrate .... A useful analogue is the course of development under Rule 39(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, providing that in spite of a litigant’s tardiness (under Rule 38 which specifies a ten-day-from-last-pleading deadline) the trial court “in its discretion” may order a trial by jury of any or all issues. Over the years, appellate courts have consistently upheld the trial judges in allowing or refusing late-demanded jury trials, but in doing so have laid down two guidelines for exercise of the discretionary power. The products of cumulative experience, these guidelines relate to the justifiability of the tardy litigant’s delay and the absence of prejudice to his adversary. Time and experience have allowed the formless problem to take shape, and the contours of a guiding principle to emerge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The District of Columbia statute is clearly permissive rather than mandatory. It gives the right to jury trial; it does not require such trial. The Constitutional guarantee, when it applies, is of the same nature. The right, not the fact, is the grant and the guarantee. It is settled beyond question that even the Constitutional right, when there is one, can be waived. And it is settled that failure to comply with reasonable rules may constitute a waiver. “The case before us poses two questions. The first is whether a defendant in a landlord-tenant case who fails to observe the rule of court, is nevertheless entitled as of right to a jury trial unless it appears that he consciously intended to forego such trial. We think the answer is no. To hold otherwise would be to reduce the enforcement of clear and reasonable rules of court to ■ an inquiry into the mental processes of non-observing parties.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““* * * [Observance of reasonable rules for the conduct of the business of the courts is not a mere technicality but may be part of the major business of preserving the basic rights of people who must come to the courts. The case before us cannot be considered as though there were on the one side a technical rule of court requiring a given action on a given day, and on the other side the fundamental right of trial by jury. The preservation of the latter may well involve the observance of the former.” Kass v. Baskin, 164 F. 2d 513, 516 (D. C. Cir. 1947). (Emphasis supplied.)”
    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.