27 F. Supp. 413 - Tullgren v. Jasper’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 1974 · most notably Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corp. (1944), United States v. Acord (1954)
5 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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 Alexander v. Hillman · Compton v. Jesup · International Co. v. Clark · 27 F. Supp. 412 - Bossard v. McGwinn · Osthaus v. Button
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.
““The answer to the question seems to depend upon the consideration whether the third-party practice in a particular case is an ancillary proceeding incidental to the main suit, or whether it is to be more properly regarded as a separate and independent new suit. If the former view prevails, then the jurisdiction is not wanting because the ancillary jurisdiction of the federal courts is well established as an essential attribute of their jurisdiction. See Compton v. Jesup, 6 Cir., 68 F. 263 , by Taft when Circuit Judge; Alexander v. Hillman, 296 U. S. 222, 239 , 56 S.Ct. 204 , 80 L.Ed. 192 ; Rose, Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure, Ch. 14. It is true that the ancillary jurisdiction of the federal courts in the sense that the term is here used is most frequently based on the possession by the court of a res, and the necessity of doing complete justice in its final disposition among all parties interested; or in supplementary proceedings necessary to make effective the orders, judgments and decrees of the court. The type of suit we are here dealing with is, of course, not a suit in rem but in personam; but it is by no means certain that the nature of ancillary jurisdiction must be limited to a case where the court has possession of a res, or a supplementary proceeding to enforce a valid judgment. We are l\ere dealing with procedural matters only, and there is very substantial ground for the view that as the general jurisdiction of the court properly attached under constitutiona”
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.