Land v. Dollar’s Empirical Analysis
188 F.2d 629 · 1951
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2002 · most notably Land v. Dollar (1951), Land v. Dollar Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce v. Dollar (1951)
12 federal appellate · 1 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. § 2106
Relies on Land US v. Dollar · United States v. Lee · Dollar v. Land · Dollar v. Land · United States v. Seigel
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“when obedience to an order may be lawfully enforced against a person who is not a party, that person is liable to the same process for enforcing obedience to the order as if a party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horphag Research Ltd., M.W. International, Inc., Societe Civile D'InvestIgatIons Pharmacologiques D'aquitaine, and Societe Civile Pour L'Expansion De La Rechereche en Phytochimie Appliquee v. Consac Industries, Inc., D/B/A Country Life, Horphag Research and M.W. International, Inc., Movants-Appellees v. International Nutrition Company and Egbert Schwitters, Joined Parties-Appellants · Horphag Research Ltd Mw v. Consac Industries Inc Horphag Research Mw““ * * * The District Court is directed to enforce obedience to its order, as herein modified, whether effective process is against the present named defendants or is against another official, or other officials, against whom the order might be lawfully enforced if he or they were a. party or parties to the suit. If the Secretary of Commerce now has custody or possession of the shares, he obviously acquired such custody or possession since the beginning of this action, indeed since the order of June 11, 1947. Obedience to the order about to be entered pursuant to this opinion is, therefore, enforceable against him, and he is liable, under Rule 71, supra, to the same process for enforcing obedience to that order as if he were a party.””
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.