Studebaker Corporation v. Richard D. Gittlin’s Empirical Analysis
360 F.2d 692 · 1966
Citation profile
66 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 192 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Mitchum v. Foster (1972), Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. (1979)
66 federal appellate · 17 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 Dombrowski v. Pfister · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak · Bowles v. Willingham · Stefanelli v. Minard · Reserve Life Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.
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 192 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A plaintiff asking an injunction because of the defendant’s violation of a statute is not required to show that otherwise rigor mortis will set in forthwith; all that ‘irreparable injury’ means in this context is that unless an injunction is granted, the plaintiff will suffer harm which cannot be repaired. At least that is enough where, as here, the only consequences of an injunction is that the defendant must effect a compliance with the statute which he ought to have done before.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But the legislative history shows that Congress anticipated protection from ‘irresponsible outsiders seeking to wrest control of a corporation away from honest and conscientious corporation officials,’ S.Rep. No. 1455, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 77 (1934), quoted in 2 Loss, supra at 950, and the Proxy Rules are shot through with provisions recognizing that in contests for control the management has a role to play as such and not merely insofar as the managers are stockholders.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(A) The Anti-Injunction Statute Title 28, U.S.C. § 2283 , reads: “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State Court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.””
3 later decisions 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.