In re Vandergrift’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2004
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Pepper v. Litton · Czaplicki v. the Hoegh Silvercloud · Everett v. Judson · Horace Dunbar v. Lottie E Dunbar · Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Harrisons & Crosfield, Ltd.
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is pointed out that “expeditious administration was a prime objective of the 1938 amendments” ( 186 F.2d 132 ) and that this Court found indications that the Congressional intent was that the periods of limitation set up were to be strictly enforced. “Modern administration requires a definitive cut-off date past which claims may not be filed,” said the Court. 186 F.2d 133 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Pigott · In re Pigott
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.