Oriel v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis
278 U.S. 358 · 1929
Citation profile
244 federal appellate · 49 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 641 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. (1949), Celotex Corporation v. Edwards (1995)
244 federal appellate · 49 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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
reviewedIn re Oriel (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Howat v. State of Kansas · United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. · Newton v. Kings County Lighting Co.
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 641 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Clear and convincing evidence * * *”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ “Where [confinement for civil contempt] has failed [to produce compliance], and where a reasonable interval of time has supplied the previous defect in the evidence, and has made sufficiently certain what was doubtful before, namely, the bankrupt’s inability to obey the order, he has always been released, and I need hardly say that he would always have the right to be released, as soon as the fact becomes clear that he can not obey.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the ease in hand the consequence is, that, as the order to pay or deliver stands without sufficient reply, it remains what it has been from the first — an order presumed to be right, and therefore an order that ought to be enforced. In the pending case, or in any other, the court may believe the bankrupt’s assertion that he is not now in possession or control of the money or the goods, and in that event the civil inquiry is at an end; but it is also true that the assertion may not be believed, and the bankrupt may therefore be subjected to> the usual pressure that follows willful disobedience of a lawful command, namely, the inconvenience of being restrained of his liberty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clements v. Coppin
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.