Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 U.S. 261 - International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus

International Shoe Co. v. Pinkus’s Empirical Analysis

278 U.S. 261 · 1929

Citation profile

593
cited by 593 later decisions
36
cited 36 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

125 federal appellate · 55 district · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 593 later decisions (36 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), Perez. v. Campbell (1971)

125 federal appellate · 55 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 17 states

11401929193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Sturges v. Crowninshield · Stellwagen v. Clum · Savage v. Jones · Ogden v. Saunders · New York Central Railroad v. Winfield

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

  1. “[s]tates may not pass or enforce laws to interfere with or complement the Bankruptcy Act or to provide additional or auxiliary regulations.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““As all the proceedings were had under the Arkansas insolvency law, we need not decide whether, independently of statute, an assignment for the benefit of creditors on the conditions specified in the decree would protect the property of the insolvent from seizure to pay the judgment. And, as the passage of the Bankruptcy Act superseded the state law, at least insofar as it relates to the distribution of property and releases to be given, plaintiff in error is entitled to have its judgment paid out of the fund in the hands of the receiver.””
    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.