Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 317 U.S. 188 - Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance’s Empirical Analysis

317 U.S. 188 · 1942

Citation profile

676
cited by 676 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

504 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 676 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover (1959), Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. (1988)

504 federal appellate · 1 district · 22 state decisions

296019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Enelow v. New York Life Insurance · Shanferoke Coal Supply Corporation v. Westchester Service Corporation · General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co. · Griesa v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York

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

  1. “looks to the substantial effect of the order made.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in no different position than if a state equity court had restrained them from proceeding in the law action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “34 Thus, we conclude that if an order of the GSBCA is an interlocutory order granting an injunction within the meaning of that phrase in Sec. 1292(a)(1), such order is within the scope of review granted to this court by Sec. 1992(c)(1). We turn to the question whether the subject order is an injunction. B. 35 The Supreme Court has stated that in determining whether a particular order is injunctive in nature, a court of appeals”
    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.