Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 U.S. 315 - Davis v. Pringle

Davis v. Pringle’s Empirical Analysis

268 U.S. 315 · 1925

Citation profile

245
cited by 245 later decisions
52
cited 52 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

84 federal appellate · 45 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 245 later decisions (52 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably United States v. Dotterweich (1943), United States v. Cooper Corp. (1941)

84 federal appellate · 45 district · 12 state decisions

5801925193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Sloan Shipyards Corporation v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation · Guarantee Title Trust Company v. Title Guaranty & Surety Company · Schall v. Camors · Davis v. Coyle

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

  1. ““Debts owing to any person who by the laws of the states or the United States is entitled to priority: Provided that the term ‘person’ as used in this section shall include corporations, the United States and the several states and territories of *the United States.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “... the use of the phrase 'any person' is insufficient to authorize an action by the Government. This conclusion is supported by the fact that if the purpose was to include the United States, 'the ordinary dignities of speech would have led' to its mention by name.”
    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.