Oakes v. Lake’s Empirical Analysis
290 U.S. 59 · 1933
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1976 · most notably Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen (1976), Fischer v. American United Life Insurance (1942)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 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
reviewedOakes v. Lake (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Covell v. Heyman · Freeman v. Howe · Bernheimer v. Converse · William Booth v. Ferdinand Clark · Converse v. Hamilton
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Coming immediately to the present cash, the authorities, federal and state, are in practical accord to the effect that where the receiver appointed in one state has taken possession of property which thereafter is found and seized upon process in another state, the receiver may maintain an action in the latter state to recover possession or for other appropriate relief. The Willamette Valley (C.C.A.) 66 F. 565, 567 ; Hopkins v. Lancaster (D.C.) 254 F. 190, 191, 192 ; Wilkinson v. Culver (C.C.) 25 F. 639 ; Jenkins v. Purcell, 29 App.D.C. 209, 215 , 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1074; Lyon v. Russell, 41 App.D.C. 554, 559 ; Pond v. Cooke, 45 Conn. 126, 132 , 29 Am.Rep. 668 ; Robertson v. Staed, 135 Mo. 135, 137 , 36 S.W. 610 , 33 L.R.A. 203 , 58 Am.St.Rep. 569 ; Woodhull v. Trust Co., 11 N.D. 157, 163, 164 , 90 N.W. 795 , 95 Am.St.Rep. 712 ; Cagill v. Wooldridge, 67 Tenn. (8 Baxt.) 580, 582, 583, 35 Am.Rep. 716 . Other cases might be cited to the same effect. The only decision which we have found definitely to the contrary is Humphreys v. Hopkins, 81 Cal. 551 , 22 P. 892 , 6 L.R.A. 792 , 15 Am.St.Rep. 76 , but in which there is a convincing dissenting opinion in harmony with the general current of authority.”
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.