Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 U.S. 36 - United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.

United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

340 U.S. 36 · 1950

Citation profile

4,899
cited by 4,899 later decisions
274
cited 274 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

2,548 federal appellate · 159 district · 231 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4,899 later decisions (274 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Roe v. Wade (1973), United States v. Sharpe (1985)

2,548 federal appellate · 159 district · 231 state decisions — followed in 29 states

1.3k019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedUnited States v. Munsingwear, Inc. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Commissioner v. Sunnen · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States · Kalb v. Feuerstein

Cited together with U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership · Southern Pacific Terminal Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission · United States v. W. T. Grant Co. · Weinstein v. Bradford · Duke Power Co. v. Greenwood County

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 4,899 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “clears the path for future relitigation of the issues between the parties and eliminates a judgment, review of which was prevented through happenstance.”
    163 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “There is no question but that the District Court in the injunction suit had jurisdiction both over the parties and the subject matter. And its judgment remains unmodified. * * * [The United States] did not avail itself of the remedy it had to preserve its rights. Denial of a motion to vacate could bring the case here [to the Supreme Court]. [ 340 U.S. at 38-40 , 71 S.Ct. at 105-07 .]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the standard disposition in federal civil cases.”
    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.