Grosfield v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
276 U.S. 494 · 1928
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 19 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1998 · most notably State ex rel. Pizza v. Rezcallah (1998), Commonwealth v. United Food Corp. (1978)
9 federal appellate · 19 district · 17 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Murphy v. United States · United States v. Boynton · Grossman v. United States ex rel. Brundage · Schlieder 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of the provision of the statute authorizing an injunction against occupancy and use is not punitive but preventive (Murphy v. U. S. 272 U. S. 630, 632 , 47 Sup. Ct. 218) ; and it is no answer to the suit to say that the owner did not participate in the criminal act of the tenant. That the tenant may have been ousted and the illegal use of the premises ended before the decree is not conclusive, if the evidence furnish reasonable ground for apprehending a repetition of such use. U. S. v. Pepe, 12 Fed. (2d) 985, 986; Schlieder v. U. S. 11 Fed. (2d) 345, 347; U. S. v. Boynton, 297 Fed. 261, 267, 268 ; Grossman v. U. S. 280 Fed. 683, 685, 686 . (Pages 497, 498.) “Upon consideration of all the circumstances, we find no ground for disturbing the conclusion upon which the decree must rest, namely, that the premises ought to be closed for a period long enough to end the probability of a recurrence of their unlawful use. We are the more content with this conclusion, since it is still within the power of the district court to permit the premises to be occupied or used upon the giving of a bond with sufficient surety in the amount and upon the conditions prescribed by the statute.””
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.