Pierre v. Jordan’s Empirical Analysis
333 F.2d 951 · 1964
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2004 · most notably Moor v. County of Alameda (1973), Baskin v. Parker (1979)
27 federal appellate · 6 district · 4 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
Relies on Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein · Schroeder v. City of New York · Thompson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · Ex parte Collins · Mosher v. City of Phoenix
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“was entitled to conclude that the district court regarded the motion as timely.... This being the case, unique circumstances exist requiring that her motion be regarded as ... effectively terminating the running of the time for appeal.’’). 4 . It is ironic that the only court with jurisdiction (subject matter competence) nonetheless dismisses for want of jurisdiction. The explanation, though ironical, is apparent. Time limits for filing an appeal have been characterized as”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute . , shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section of .2284 of this title.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Fleck v. Spannaus““Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” [Emphasis added.]”
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.