Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 F.2d 646 - United States v. United States Vanadium Corp.

United States v. United States Vanadium Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

230 F.2d 646 · 1956

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably United States v. Polizzi (1974), Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Frank Nisley, Jr., Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. John F. Wade, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Howard Balsley, Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation and Vanadium Corporation of America v. Unnamed (1962)

21 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

1001956196019701980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Safeway Stores, Inc. · United States v. P. F. Collier & Son Corp. · United States v. Line Material Co. · 136 F. Supp. 214 - United States v. Cigarette Merchandisers Ass'n

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

  1. ““In the light of these later decisions we are asked to re-examine the Safeway case and, in effect, are asked to overrule it. Assuming without deciding that members of this panel are not in full sympathy with the law as declared in the Safeway case, for reasons presently stated we nonetheless adhere to the doctrine there announced. We feel that one panel of the court should not lightly overrule a decision by another panel. To do so puts the law into a state of flux, and no one can tell what the law will be until the composition of the court is determined.””
    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.