Stoll v. Gottlieb’s Empirical Analysis
305 U.S. 165 · 1938
Citation profile
603 federal appellate · 119 district · 388 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,049 later decisions (89 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Heck v. Humphrey (1994), United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947)
603 federal appellate · 119 district · 388 state decisions — followed in 37 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 Baldwin v. Ionwa State Traveling Men's Ass'n · Davis v. Davis · Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad · Sarah Fall v. Elizabeth Eastin
Cited together with Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank · Treinies v. Sunshine Mining Co. · Baldwin v. Ionwa State Traveling Men's Ass'n · Durfee v. Duke · Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinee
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 2,049 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After a party has his day in court, with opportunity to present his evidence and his view of the law, a collateral attack upon the decision as to jurisdiction there rendered merely retries the issue previously determined. There is no reason to expect that the second decision will be more satisfactory than the first.”
46 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . that decision is 'final until reversed in an appellate court, or modified or set aside in the court of its rendition.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To appraise the cases dealing with status and transfer of title to real estate seems outside the scope of the present inquiry. The rule applied here may or may not be applicable in instances where the courts with jurisdiction of the later controversy are passing upon matters of status and real estate titles.””
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.