Ex parte Poresky’s Empirical Analysis
290 U.S. 30 · 1933
Citation profile
654 federal appellate · 308 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,830 later decisions (60 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Flast v. Cohen (1968), Hagans v. Lavine (1974)
654 federal appellate · 308 district · 66 state decisions — followed in 20 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.
Relationships
Relies on Hess v. Pawloski · Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin · John Hendrick v. State of Maryland · Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Green Garrett
Cited together with Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson · Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein · California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding · Goosby v. Osser · Phillips 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 1,830 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.”
81 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he provision requiring the presence of a court of three judges necessarily assumes that the District Court has jurisdiction. In the absence of diversity of citizenship, it is essential to jurisdiction that a substantial federal question should be presented. “A substantial claim of unconstitutionality is necessary for the application of section 266.” (Citations omitted). That provision does not require three judges to pass upon this initial question of jurisdiction. The existence of a substantial question of constitutionality must be determined by the allegations of the bill of complaint. (Citations omitted). While it is appropriate that a single District Judge to whom application is made for an interlocutory injunction restraining the enforcement of a state statute should carefully scrutinize the bill of complaint to ascertain whether a substantial question is presented, to the end that the complainant should not be denied opportunity to be heard in the prescribed manner upon a question that is fairly open to debate, the District Judge clearly has authority to dismiss for the want of jurisdiction when the question lacks the necessary substance and no other ground of jurisdiction appears.”
3 later decisions 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.