Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 175 F.2d 395 - Joy v. Hague

Joy v. Hague’s Empirical Analysis

175 F.2d 395 · 1949

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
March 2009
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2009

12 federal appellate · 6 district ·

801949195019601970198019902000decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1653

Relies on McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Keene Lumber Co. v. Leventhal · Wettre v. Hague · Insular Police Commission v. Lopez · United States v. Winkle Terra Cotta, Inc.

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

  1. ““The function of the trial court in matters involving jurisdiction is rather carefully defined in McNutt, Governor of Indiana, et al. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 , at page 182, 56 S.Ct. 780, 785 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 , where the court, after declaring that it is the duty of the trial court, if it finds that jurisdiction does not exist, to proceed no further but to dismiss the suit, said: '* * * the party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor * * * must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction. If he fails to make the necessary allegations he has no standing. If he does make them, an inquiry into the existence of jurisdiction is obviously for the purpose of determining whether the facts support his allegations. In the nature of things, the authorized inquiry is primarily directed to the one who claims that the power of the court should be exerted in his behalf. As he is seeking relief subject to this supervision, it follows that he must carry throughout the litigation the burden of showing that he is properly in court. * * * If his allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner, he must support them by competent proof.' “Though appellants complain that the lower court erred in its conclusion that it had no jurisdiction, on the face of the record, the decision was correct, — indeed, unavoidable and mandatory upon the part of the court. Insular Police Commission v. Lopez, 1 Cir., 1”
    3 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.