Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 U.S. 609 - Chandler v. Peketz

Chandler v. Peketz’s Empirical Analysis

297 U.S. 609 · 1936

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
June 1991
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1991 · most notably Hansberry v. Lee (1940), Markham v. Allen (1946)

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 14 states

3401936194019501960197019801990decided

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 Fauntleroy v. Lum · Jones v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Bernheimer v. Converse · Converse v. Hamilton · Hancock National Bank v. Farnum

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

  1. ““[T]he order levying the assessment is made conclusive as to all matters relating to the amount and propriety thereof, and the necessity therefor; that it is thus conclusive, although the stockholder may not have been a party to the suit in which it was made or notified that an assess ment was contemplated, as the order is not in the nature of a personal judgment against him and he must be deemed, by virtue of his relation to the corporation and the obligation assumed with respect to its debts, to be represented by it in the proceeding .... ””
    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.