Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Moulders Union Local No. 68’s Empirical Analysis
254 U.S. 77 · 1920
Citation profile
177 federal appellate · 56 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 430 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2011 · most notably Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson (1968), City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York (1941)
177 federal appellate · 56 district · 32 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedIron Molders' Union, Local No. 68 v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on William Shields v. Robert R Barrow · Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · City of Dawson v. Columbia Avenue Saving Fund, Safe Deposit, Title & Trust Co. · Barney v. Baltimore City
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 430 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Persons who not only have an interest in the controversy, but an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting that interest, or leaving the controversy in such a condition tiiat its final termination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * There is no prescribed formula for determining in every case whether a person * * * is an indispensable party * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[M]aking it a party defendant could not give to the District Court jurisdiction against the objection of another party, or over the court’s own scrutiny of the record, unless there existed a genuine controversy between it and the plaintiff, the petitioner____ That there was not and could not be any substantial controversy, any “collision of interest,” between the petitioner and the Tool Company, is of course obvious from the potential control which the ownership of stock by the former gave it over the latter company, and from the actual control effected by the membership of the boards of directors and by the selection of executive officers of the two companies, which have been described.”
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.