Nolen v. Riechman’s Empirical Analysis
225 F. 812 · 1915
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2001
1 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 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 Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Barbier v. Connolly · Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson · John Hendrick v. State of Maryland
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It must be conceded that this doctrine is an exception to the general rule (In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200 , 210, 8 Sup. Ct. 482 , 31 L. Ed. 402 ); and yet the exception is so firmly established in the federal practice that no useful purpose would be served by pausing to trace its origin. The reason for the exception, where applicable, is the constitutional invalidity of-the statute, and, consequently, the absence of lawful power to impose or enforce the particular exactions or restrictions which would result in irreparable loss to the complaining party. Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605 , 621, 32 Sup. Ct. 340 , 56 L. Ed. 570 . The contention made here that the court is without jurisdiction to consider the statute overlooks the feature of plaintiff’s case which challenges the constitutional validity of the statute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The principle upon which such an aggregation can be employed as a test of jurisdiction is that the persons joining in the suit must have a common and undivided interest, not distinct interests, in the amount involved; still, this is not to say that, if the property involved is in truth separately owned and held, the parties may not constitute a class who may be joined for the sake of convenience and economy; it is to say that aggregation of their pecuniary interests is not permissible for making up the jurisdictional amount.””
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.