Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 245 F.2d 798 - L. N. Childress and Roger W. Crampton v. E. A. Cook, Jr.

L. N. Childress and Roger W. Crampton v. E. A. Cook, Jr.’s Empirical Analysis

245 F.2d 798 · 1957

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 1981
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1981 · most notably Zahn v. International Paper Co. (1973), Revere Copper and Brass Incorporated v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, and Third-Party v. George A. Fuller Company, Inc., Third-Party (1970)

21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1801957196019701980decided

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 Local Loan Co. v. Hunt · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Mitchell v. Maurer · Washingtonsouthern Nav Co v. Baltimore & Philadelphia Steamboat Co · Rickey Land Cattle Company v. Miller & Lux Rickey Land & Cattle Company

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

  1. ““A pleading may state as a cross-claim any claim by one party against a co-party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter either of the original action or of a counterclaim therein or relating to any property that is the subject matter of the original action. Such cross-claim may include a claim that the party against whom it is asserted is or may be liable to the cross-claimant for all or part of a claim asserted in the action against the cross-claimant.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]hese rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the United States district courts * * *”
    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.