Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Prudence Securities Advisory Group’s Empirical Analysis
311 U.S. 579 · 1941
Citation profile
146 federal appellate · 9 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 221 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. United States Bay Counties Dist Council of Carpenters (1947), Woods v. City Nat Bank & Trust Co of Chicago (1941)
146 federal appellate · 9 district · 12 state decisions
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
reviewedIn re Prudence-Bonds Corp. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan · Taylor v. Voss · Dickinson Industrial Site, Inc. v. Cowan · Rorick v. Board of Comm'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist. · Farrar v. Churchill
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 221 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * Normally the Circuit Court of Appeals would be wholly justified in treating the mere filing of a notice of appeal in the District Court as insufficient. But the defect is not jurisdictional in the sense that it deprives the court of power to allow the appeal. The court has discretion, where the scope of review is not affected, to disregard such an irregularity in the interests of substantial justice. * * * The failure to comply with statutory requirements * * * is not necessarily a jurisdictional defect. * * *”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * it would be extremely harsh to hold that petitioners were deprived of their right to have the court exercise its discretion on the allowance of their appeals by reason of their erroneous reliance upon the permanency of London v. O'Dougherty, supra (2 Cir., 102 F.2d 524).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“timely application to the circuit court of appeals for leave to appeal is a jurisdictional requirement”
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.