Williams v. Murdoch’s Empirical Analysis
330 F.2d 745 · 1964
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Dickens v. Puryear (1981), Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia (1998)
38 federal appellate · 7 district · 8 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Angel v. Bullington · American Surety Co. v. Baldwin · Hartmann v. Time, Inc.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Title 28 U.S.C., section 1738 says: The Acts of the legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States, or copies thereof, shall be authenticated by affixing the seal of such State, Territory, or Possession thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of any court of any such State, Territory or Possession, or copies thereof, shall be proved or admitted in other courts within the United States and its Territories and Possessions by the attestation of the clerk and seal of the court annexed, if a seal exists, together with a certificate of a judge of the court that the said attestation is in proper form. Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States or its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In any event, since the Supreme Court filed no opinion, we cannot tell with exactitude the reason why it dismissed and quashed Mrs. Williams’ petition, but we think it clear that it did not adjudicate the matters contained in the petition. The plea of res judicata cannot be sustained upon the action taken by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania complained of by Mrs. Williams.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the same full faith and credit . . . as [it has] by law or usage in the courts of [the] State”
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.