Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 316 U.S. 283 - Reeves v. Beardall

Reeves v. Beardall’s Empirical Analysis

316 U.S. 283 · 1942

Citation profile

353
cited by 353 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
February 2006
most recently cited

254 federal appellate · 6 district · 55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 353 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2006 · most notably Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey (1956), Cold Metal Process Company v. United Engineering & Foundry Company (1956)

254 federal appellate · 6 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 12 states

12801942195019601970198019902000decided

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

reviewedHunteman v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Collins v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp. · Hunteman v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. · Atwater v. North American Coal Corp. · Bowles v. Commercial Casualty Ins.

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

  1. “(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment upon one or more but less than all of the claims only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates less than all the claims shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The claim against respondent on the promissory note was unrelated to the claim on the contract not to change the will. Those two claims arose out of wholly separate and distinct transactions or engagements.””
    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.