United States of America for the Use of Theodore A. Tanos v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company’s Empirical Analysis
361 F.2d 838 · 1966
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably McCoy v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1991), Harris v. Garner (2000)
17 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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 Farr & Co. v. Cia. Intercontinental De Navegacion De Cuba, S. A. · Delray Beach Aviation Corp. v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc. · Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Everett · Cherry, Et Ux. v. Heffernan · 43 So. 2d 704 - McCord v. Smith
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(e) [Summons]: Service Upon Party Not Inhabitant of or Found Within State. . . . Whenever a statute ... of the state in which the district court is held provides . . . (1) for service of a summons . . . upon a party not an inhabitant of or found within the state, . . . service may . be made under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed in the statute.” [Emphasis supplied]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are of the opinion that [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 4(c) ... governs the service of writs of garnishment issued in a proceeding in a federal court, rather than Rule 1.3(c) [of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure], which is not a rule peculiarly applicable to service of writs of garnishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have statutory effect.” U.S. for Use of Tanos v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 361 F.2d 838 (5th Cir.1966); see also Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. v. Hearthside Baking Company, Inc., 313 F.3d 385, 392 (7th Cir.2002) (”
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.