Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 309 U.S. 280 - Russell v. Todd

Russell v. Todd’s Empirical Analysis

309 U.S. 280 · 1940

Citation profile

406
cited by 406 later decisions
24
cited 24 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

211 federal appellate · 31 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 406 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1942), Holmberg v. Armbrecht (1946)

211 federal appellate · 31 district · 14 state decisions

123019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedTodd v. Russell (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 12 U.S.C. § 63 · 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States · Wood v. Carpenter · Bailey Assignee v. Glover et al. · Southern Pac Co v. Bogert

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

  1. “equity will withhold its remedy if the legal right is barred by the local statute of limitations.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n the absence of any statute of limitations made applicable to similar equitable claims, equity has provided its own rule of limitations through the use of the doctrine of laches.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Even though there is no state statute applicable to similar equitable demands, when the jurisdiction of the federal court is concurrent with that at law, or the suit is brought in aid of a legal right, equity will withhold its remedy if the legal right is barred by the local statute of limitations. * * * “But where the equity jurisdiction is exclusive and is not exercised in aid or support of a legal right, state statutes of limitations barring actions at law are inapplicable, and in the absence of any state statute barring the equitable remedy in like cases, the federal court is remitted to and applies the doctrine of laches as controlling.””
    3 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.