Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 F.2d 761 - Jewell Turner and Cyrus O. Turner v. J. v. Brookshear, Elmer Graham, and Vance Foster

Jewell Turner and Cyrus O. Turner v. J. v. Brookshear, Elmer Graham, and Vance Foster’s Empirical Analysis

271 F.2d 761 · 1959

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2014

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

501959196019701980199020002010decided

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 Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Elbert · Franz v. Buder · Choctaw & Chickasaw Nations v. Seitz · Skelly Oil Co. v. Wickham · Chidester v. City of Newark

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

  1. “Prior to the adoption of Rule 19(a) ... it was well settled that an indispensable party is one who has such an interest in the subject matter of the controversy that a final decree cannot be rendered between the other parties to the suit without affecting his interest, or without leaving the controversy in such a situation that its final determination may be inconsistent with equity and good conscience. Rule 19(a) did not change the former rule.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““An indispensable party has been defined as one without whose presence before the court a final decree could not be made without either affecting his interest or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination might be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. * * * Whether or not a person is an indispensable party cannot be determined by a prescribed formula because the facts peculiar to each case are determinative of that question. * * * ””
    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.