Heay v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
201 F.2d 220 · 1952
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Roberts v. Williams (1971), Williams v. United States (1953)
10 federal appellate · 3 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 Barthel v. Stamm · Schuckman v. Rubenstein · Holley Coal Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co. · Girard Trust Co. v. Amsterdam
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While it is true that any substantial amendment which operates as a surprise to the opposite party may constitute a basis for granting a continuance, the granting of a continuance is not a matter of right, but is always within the discretion of the court.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Humphries v. Going“wide discretion in granting or refusing leave to amend after the first amendment, and only upon gross abuse will [its] rulings be disturbed.”
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.