In re Ferkauf’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Petition of Hall by and Through Hall (1997), Ash v. Cort (1975)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 12 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956)
Relies on State of Arizona v. State of California · Todd Engineering, Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. United States · In re Ernst · Hall v. Stout · La Guardia v. Austin-Bliss General Tire 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a court of the United States but is presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought, 2. the subject matter of the expected action and his interest therein, 3. the facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it, 4. the names or a description of the persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as known, and 5. the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Rosario“Rule 27 was not intended to be used as a discovery statute”
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.