Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 307 U.S. 66 - Gibbs v. Buck

Gibbs v. Buck’s Empirical Analysis

307 U.S. 66 · 1939

Citation profile

1,265
cited by 1,265 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

406 federal appellate · 223 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,265 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Land US v. Dollar (1947), Thomson v. Gaskill (1942)

406 federal appellate · 223 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 10 states

21601939194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Nebbia v. People of State of New York · United States v. Carolene Products Co. · Grosjean v. American Press Co.

Cited together with McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · KVOS, Inc. v. Associated Press · St Paul Mercury Indemnity Co v. Red Cab Co · Land US v. Dollar · Wetmore v. Rymer

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 1,265 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As there is no statutory direction for procedure upon an issue of jurisdiction, the mode of its determination is left to the trial court.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It would be useless ... to reverse the order granting the temporary injunction and remand the cause”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In deciding suits in equity, including those required to be heard before three judges, the court of first instance shall find the facts specially and state separately its conclusions of law thereon; and, in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions, the court of first instance shall similarly set forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law which constitute the grounds of its action. Such findings and conclusions shall be entered of record and, if an appeal is taken from the decree, shall be included by the clerk in the record which is certified to the appellate court under rules 75 and 76.”
    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.