Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 U.S. 275 - Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp.

Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

328 U.S. 275 · 1946

Citation profile

1,463
cited by 1,463 later decisions
73
cited 73 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

696 federal appellate · 139 district · 70 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,463 later decisions (73 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (2005), Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. (1976)

696 federal appellate · 139 district · 70 state decisions — followed in 21 states

2930194619501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedFishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Skidmore v. Swift & Co. · Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank · Stoll v. Gottlieb

Cited together with Oakley v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · McKinney v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad · Tilton v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Trailmobile Co. v. Whirls · Accardi v. Pennsylvania Railroad

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 1,463 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “does not step back on the seniority escalator at the point he stepped off. He steps back on at the precise point he would have occupied had he kept his position continuously during the war.”
    73 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the case of any such person who, in order to perform such training and service, has left or leaves a position * * * * * * * * “(B) if such position was in the employ of a private employer, such person shall—• “(i) if still qualified to perform the duties of such position, be restored by such employer or his successor in interest to such position or to a position of like seniority, status, and pay * *”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. ““Any person who is restored to a position in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b) [of this section] shall be considered as having been on furlough or leave of absence during his period of training and service in the armed forces, shall be so restored without loss of seniority, shall be entitled to participate in insurance or other benefits offered by the employer pursuant to established rules and practices relating to employees on furlough or leave of absence in effect with the employer at the time such person was inducted into such forces, and shall not be discharged from such position without cause within one year after such restoration.””
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.