Janousek v. Doyle’s Empirical Analysis
313 F.2d 916 · 1963
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Segal v. Gordon (1972), Rush Pettway and Peter J. Wrenn v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company (1969)
20 federal appellate · 10 district · 3 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.
Relationships
Relies on Smith v. Pollin · Ex parte National Enameling & Stamping Co. · Kozak v. Wells · Gaunt v. United States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An appeal from an interlocutory order does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to continue with other phases of the ease. “The case, except for the hearing on the appeal from the interlocutory order, is to proceed in a lower court, as though no such appeal had been taken, unless otherwise specifically ordered.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Except as stated herein, no execution shall issue upon a judgment nor shall proceedings be taken for its enforcement until the expiration of 10 days after its entry. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or in a receivership action, or a judgment or order directing an accounting in an action for infringement of letters patent, shall not be stayed during the period after its entry and until an appeal is taken or during the pendency of an appeal. . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. MacOn v. Bailar““[a]n appeal from a motion granting a preliminary injunction does not have the effect to remove the cause to this court, but the cause generally remains in the. court below, and continues in the control of that court.”.”
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.