Chandler & Price Co. v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
296 U.S. 53 · 1935
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 24 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Alexander v. Hillman (1935), Powell v. United States (1937)
32 federal appellate · 24 district · 9 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
reviewedBrandtjen & Kluge, Inc. v. Joseph Freeman, Inc. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. · General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co. · Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Baldwin · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. United States & Mexican Trust 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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The intervener was not entitled to come into the suit for the purpose of having adjudicated a controversy solely between it and plaintiff. Issues tendered by or arising out of plaintiff’s bill may not by the intervener be so enlarged. It is limited to the field of litigation open to the original parties. * * * Introduction . by intervention of issues outside those that properly may arise between the original parties complicates the suit and is liable to impose upon plaintiff a burden having no relation to the field of the litigation opened by his bill”. Chandler & Price Co. v. Brandtjen & Kluge, 296 U.S. 53, 57, 59 , 56 S.Ct. 6, 8 , 80 L.Ed. 39 . “It is apparent that, the right to become a party to the litigation being given, the range of activity of the newcomer in the prosecution or defense of the interest he is thus permitted to assert must necessarily be as extensive as, but no greater than, that allowed the original parties to the suit”. Leaver v. K. & L. Box & Lumber Co., D.C., 6 F.2d 666, 667 .”
2 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.