De Beers Consol Mines v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
325 U.S. 212 · 1945
Citation profile
478 federal appellate · 60 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 915 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Grupo Mexicano Desarrollos v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc, Will v. United States (1967)
478 federal appellate · 60 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40 · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · Gibbs v. Buck · Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp. · Princess Lida of Thurn & Taxis v. Thompson
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 915 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“be availed of to correct a mere error in the exercise of conceded judicial power,”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To sustain the [preliminary injunction] would create a precedent of sweeping effect. This suit ... is not to be distinguished from any other suit in equity. What applies to it applies to all such. Every suitor who resorts to chancery for any sort of relief by injunction may, on a mere statement of belief that the defendant can easily make away with or transport his money or goods, impose an injunction on him, indefinite in duration, disabling him to use so much of his funds or property as the court deems necessary for security or compliance with its possible decree. And, if so, it is difficult to see why a plaintiff in any action for a personal judgment in tort or contract may not, also, apply to the chancellor for a so-called injunction sequestering his opponent’s assets pending recovery and satisfaction of a judgment in such a law action. No relief of this character has been thought justified in the long history of equity jurisprudence.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] preliminary injunction is always appropriate to grant intermediate relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.”
14 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.