Heddendorf v. Goldfine’s Empirical Analysis
263 F.2d 887 · 1959
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray (2000), United States v. The Montreal Trust Company, and Tillie v. Lechtzier, Executors of the Estateof Isidor J. Klein, Deceased (1966)
32 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Catlin v. United States · Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson · Parker v. United States · Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, Inc.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of Appeals may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within ten days after the entry of the order * * *.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“interlocutory certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and where the proposed intermediate appeal presents one or more difficult and pivotal questions of law not settled by controlling authority.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“must necessarily rely upon the would-be appellant to supply in his petition, or in a supporting memorandum attached thereto, a certified copy of the challenged order, a concise but adequate presentation of facts showing the proceedings below prior to the challenged order and the proceedings remaining in the district court, and a statement of the precise nature of the controlling question of law involved, together with a brief argument showing the grounds for the asserted difference of opinion and the way in which the allowance of the petition would 'materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.' " 16 Clark-Deitz & Assocs.-Eng'rs v. Basic Constr. Co., 702 F.2d 67 , 68 (5th Cir.1983) (quoting In re Heddendorf, 263 F.2d 887 , 889 (1st Cir.1959) (emphasis supplied). A difficulty here was that CSX framed too broadly the purported "controlling question of law,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.