Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 F.2d 701 - Fields v. Washington

Fields v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis

173 F.2d 701 · 1949

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
states following
September 1994
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently September 1994 · most notably Hales v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (1974), Adler v. Northern Hotel Co. (1949)

26 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

390194919501960197019801990decided

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 Overnight Motor Transportation Co. v. Missel · Huntington v. Attrill · Sullivan v. Associated Billposters & Distributors of United States & Canada · Porter v. Montgomery

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

  1. ““(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to demand, accept, receive, or retain any rent for the use or occupancy of any controlled housing accommodations in excess of the maximum rent prescribed under this Act, or otherwise to do or omit to do any act, in violation of this Act, or of any regulation or order or requirement under this Act, or to offer, solicit, attempt, or agree to do any of the foregoing.” “(6) Whenever in the judgment of the President (the original Section said Housing Expediter) any person has engaged or is about to engage in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of any provision of this Act, or any regulation or order issued thereunder, the United States may make application to any Federal, State, or Territorial court of competent jurisdiction for an order enjoining such acts or practices, or for an order enforcing compliance with such provision, and upon a showing that such person has engaged or is about to engage in any such acts or practices a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be granted without bond.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “more usual modern view is that (§ 1355) extends only to suits by a public officer to recover a sum of money that will be paid into the public treasury”
    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.