Kaufman v. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A.’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
102 federal appellate · 21 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001 · most notably Ramirez de Arellano v. Weinberger (1984), Kozak v. Wells (1960)
102 federal appellate · 21 district ·
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
reviewedKaufman v. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales S. A. (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Propper v. Clark · Anderson v. Abbott · Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp. · Guessefeldt v. McGrath · Sutphen Estates, Inc. v. United States
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * when the Government seizes assets of a corporation organized under the laws of a neutral country, the rights of innocent stockholders to an interest in the assets proportionate to their stock holdings must be fully protected.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * We there held that the 1941 amendment [to the Trading with the Enemy Act] authorized the Custodian to seize and vest in himself all property of any foreign country or national, even that of friendly or neutral nations. At the same time we refused to hold that the 1941 amendment deprived friendly or neutral nations or nationals of a right to have their assets returned if they could prove that they were free of any open or concealed enemy taint. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory. (b) The government of any nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof. (c) Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.” 1 § 7(c) * * * The sole relief and remedy of any person having any claim to any money or other property heretofore or hereafter conveyed, transferred, assigned, delivered, or paid over to the Alien Property Custodian, or required so to be, or seized by him shall be that provided by the terms of this Act [sections 1-6, 7-39 and 41-44 of this Appendix], and in the event of sale ”
1 later decision 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.