Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 F.2d 19 - Division 689, Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America v. Capital Transit Co.

Division 689, Amalgamated Ass'n of Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of America v. Capital Transit Co.’s Empirical Analysis

227 F.2d 19 · 1955

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
states following
December 1981
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently December 1981 · most notably Fleischer v. Phillips (1959), Chappell & Co. v. Frankel (1966)

49 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

2901955196019701980decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia District Court)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Schering Corp. · Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc. · Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““(a) The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: “(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, or of the judges thereof,, granting, continuing, modify ing, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “is not an application for injunctive relief.”
    2 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.