Madden v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
264 F.2d 169 · 1959
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1997 · most notably Costello v. United States (1961), Gaf Corporation v. United States Keene Corporation (1987)
21 federal appellate · 5 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 Haldeman v. United States · Breeding Motor Freight Lines, Inc. v. Reconstruction Finance Corp. · Pueblo De Taos v. Archuleta · Hubsch v. United States
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“He overlooks the fact that the order of dismissal specifies the precise grounds upon which the petition was dismissed. He also overlooks the fact that, according to the court's order, the dismissal was based upon a failure of a jurisdictional requirement, which is expressly excepted from the operation of rule 41(b). 12 "We hold that, under rule 41(b), Judge Perry, having in the order for dismissal specified the grounds therefor, which, as to the Locals, did not involve the merits of the case, the dismissal order does not operate as an adjudication upon the merits. The purpose of the inclusion of the quoted sentence in rule 41(b) is to state the effect of a general dismissal in which the court specifies no grounds therefor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nder Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.A.) dismissal of an action for failure to comply with an order of the court operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless the order for dismissal otherwise specifies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Conduct by petitioner of a preliminary investigation of the amended charge as required by Section 10( l ) of the Act and Section 101.4 of the NLRB's Statements of Procedure prior to filing a petition for injunction based thereon is a condition precedent to petitioner's right to file a petition and is a jurisdictional requirement compliance with which respondents are entitled to challenge and litigate in this proceeding. * * * "2. Petitioner is not by law entitled to withhold evidence as to its compliance with said jurisdictional requirement in this proceeding in which petitioner is invoking the court's aid and seeking judicial relief. * * * "3. Petitioner's refusal to testify and produce the evidence required by the subpoena deprives respondents of opportunity to establish a relevant defense, by due process of law. "4. [Not here relevant] "5. For the foregoing reasons, an order should be entered dismissing the petition for injunctive relief as to all respondents. "Order "It is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the petition be and it hereby is dismissed. * * *”
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.