Currie v. Flack’s Empirical Analysis
190 F.2d 549 · 1951
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1345 · 28 U.S.C. § 1355
Relies on Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Testa v. Katt · Fields v. Washington · Adler v. Northern Hotel Co. · 84 F. Supp. 220 - McCrae v. Johnson
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Appellant quite properly does not rely upon this section [28 U. S.C. § 1355], The tenant’s action for damages by way of compensation for the injury suffered by him individually is not a proceeding for the recovery of a “penalty” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1355 . Fields v. Washington, 3 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 701 , 703. It if were so regarded, then consistently with § 1355, the federal district courts would have jurisdiction exclusive of the courts of the states. But under § 205 of the Housing and Rent Act, the tenant may sue “in any Federal, State, or Territorial court of competent jurisdiction”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.