Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 331 U.S. 132 - Ayrshire Collieries Corporation v. United States

Ayrshire Collieries Corporation v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

331 U.S. 132 · 1947

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk (1962), United States v. ICC (1949)

20 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions

21019471950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp. · Phillips v. United States · Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · United States v. Aluminum Co. of America · Dohany v. Rogers

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

  1. “[W]e cannot say that the failure of the third judge to participate in the determination of a case, where the other two are in agreement as to the result, is without significance. The decision reached by two judges is not necessarily the one which might have been reached had they had the benefit of the views and conclusions of the third judge.... . . . While all three judges of the specially constituted court heard the oral argument, only two of them participated in the determination of the case. The findings of fact, the conclusions of law and the judgment were all entered without the approval, concurrence or dissent of the third judge. He thus missed the very essence of the judicial function in this case — the actual adjudication of the issues of law and fact. All that we have here is an adjudication by two judges. But under the statute it is not enough that there be an adjudication by two judges. They lack any statutory authority to hear and determine [the case].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This requirement, of course, is necessarily technical. It is not a broad social measure to be construed with liberality. It is a technical rule of procedure to be applied as such.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we have no alternative but to vacate the judgment and dismiss the appeal.”
    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.