Day v. Keim’s Empirical Analysis
2 F.2d 966 · 1924
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1992
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Relies on Royall · Nishimura Ekiu v. United States · Robb v. Connolly · Arthur Appleyard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Kurtz v. Moffitt
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“was enacted for the purpose of controlling the subject of interstate rendition, and its provisions were intended to be dominant and as far as they operated controlling and exclusive of state power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Idaho
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.