Jung v. K. & D. Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 165 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Max Lopez Jr v. Ga Smith Larry Loo a Acevedo Patterson 4a-2r (2000), WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller (1997)
104 federal appellate · 35 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedHenry M. Jung, Etc. v. K. & D. Mining Co., Inc. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77L (§ 12 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co. · Missouri Kansas Interurban Railway Company v. City of Olathe · Clark v. City of Kansas City Kan · Crutcher v. Joyce
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 165 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although to be sure nearly two years elapsed between the time petitioners were given leave to file an amended complaint and their motion of March 25, 1957, the defendants also did not, as they so easily could have done, nor did the District Court exercising power sua sponte over its own calendar, take any step to put a definitive end to the case and thereby fix an unequivocal terminal date for appealability. The undesirability of useless delays in litigation is more than offset by the hazards of confusion or misunderstanding as to the time for appeal.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * It did not direct `that all relief be denied' (Rule 58 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A.) but left the suit pending for further proceedings `either by amendment of the [complaint] or entry of final judgment.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Certainty as to timeliness ... is not advanced by holding that appellate jurisdiction does not exist absent a separate judgment. If, by error, a separate judgment is not filed before a party appeals, nothing but delay would flow from requiring the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal. Upon dismissal, the district court would simply file and enter the separate judgment, from which a timely appeal would then be taken. Wheels would spin for no practical purpose.”
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.