Berlinsky v. Woods’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.2d 265 · 1949
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2006 · most notably Appeal of United States Securities and Exchange Commission (1955), Stroud v. Benson (1958)
19 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Williams v. Fanning · Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Kadrie · State of Louisiana v. William Gibbs McAdoo · United States of America the Riverside Oil Company v. Ethan a Hitchcock · Adams v. Nagle
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(2) Since the power to administer the Housing and Rent Control ■ Act of 1947, as amended, was lodged in the Housing Expediter under Sections 204 and 206, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, §§ 1894, 1896, and the purpose of the suit is to require him to take action in the exercise of his statutory powers, he is an indispensable party to the suit which cannot go on without him; and the case must therefore also be dismissed as to the Area Rent Director and the Sheriff of Baltimore City. Jacobs v. Office of Housing Expediter, 7 Cir., 176 F.2d 338 ; Williams v. Fanning, 332 U.S. 490, 493 , 68 S.Ct. 188 , 92 L.Ed. 95 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lazar v. Benson · Stroud v. Benson““(1) The District Court did not have jurisdiction over the Housing Expediter because his official residence is in Washington, in the District of Columbia, and the attempted service of process upon him in the District of Columbia was ineffective to confer jurisdiction upon the court. Butterworth v. Hill, 114 U.S. 128 , 5 S.Ct. 796 , 29 L.Ed. 119 ; Federal Landlords Committee, Inc., v. Woods, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 9 F.R.D. 622 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lazar v. Benson
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.