Federal Facilities Realty Trust v. Kulp’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Federal Deposit Insurance v. Meyer (1986), Local P-171 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America v. Thompson Farms Company Plank (1981)
47 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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 Nye v. United States · Hovey v. McDonald · Smith v. Pollin · Draper v. Davis
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) Stay Upon Appeal. When an appeal is taken the appellant by giving a supersede-as bond may obtain a stay subject to the exceptions contained in subdivision (a) of this rule. The bond may be given at or after the time of filing the notice of appeal or of procuring the order allowing the appeal, as the case may be. The stay is effective when the supersedeas bond is approved by the court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]ell settled that filing a notice of appeal from a district court's judgment vests jurisdiction over the cause appealed in the court of appeals.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the supersedeas becomes effective, the appellant obtains thereby a valuable right to have the status quo preserved until his appeal is heard and decided ____The provisions of the cited rules seem clearly to contemplate that the trial court’s reserved power is exhausted when the court approves a supersedeas bond and the stay becomes effective. A different interpretation would have the effect of leaving a litigant’s rights in a supersedeas ever subject to the jurisdiction of the trial judge until the appeal is finally decided. We conclude, therefore, that the district court had no jurisdiction to vacate the stay order previously entered or to take any action, for, on perfection of the appeal and entry of the order for supersedeas, jurisdiction over the supersedeas as well as of the judgment was transferred to this court. Id. at 655, 656 . Federal Facilities would therefore suggest that Netumar’s application should be directed to the Court of Appeals which could grant the relief sought but which relief is beyond the power of this Court.”
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.