Healy v. Pennsylvania R. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
181 F.2d 934 · 1950
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Fitzsimmons v. Yeager (1968), Sonnenblick-Goldman Corp. v. Nowalk (1970)
48 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. · United States v. Crescent Amusement Co. · United States v. Hark · Aspen Mining & Smelting Co. v. Billings · Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Amended Rule 73(a) clearly contemplates both an order and its entry in the docket in connection with such motions, explicitly providing that the time for appeal shall “ * * * be computed from the entry * * of orders * * No order was made or entered in this case. Nor was the memorandum differently treated by the Clerk of the District Court who entered it in the docket according to its tenor and title as an opinion and did not send out the notices required of him by Rule 77(d). Accordingly, there has been no effective disposition of the motions ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“April 12, 1949. Memorandum Opinion * * * denying motion to set aside verdict or for new trial, filed.”
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.