United States v. Richardson’s Empirical Analysis
204 F.2d 552 · 1953
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2008 · most notably Carter v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1966), 2,606.84 Acres of Land in Tarrant County, Texas, Et Al. v. United States (1971)
32 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 33 U.S.C. § 591 · 33 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Catlin v. United States · Ex parte Fahey · Enelow v. New York Life Insurance · Collins v. Miller · Luxton v. North River Bridge Co.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * We are in no doubt that we have jurisdiction to issue an alternative writ in a proper case but these writs as was said in Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258 , 67 S.Ct. 1558 , 1559, 91 L.Ed. 2041 ‘should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate remedy. * * * As extraordinary remedies, they are reserved for really extraordinary causes.’ The present case may not be so characterized. The appellant contends that if a writ is not granted it is left without a remedy and that the power of reviewing will be defeated. Further that the order for examination constituted not only an abuse of discretion but an error as to the scope of the court’s authority under the rules.” 204 F.2d at page 556.”
5 later decisions 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.