Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 363 U.S. 641 - Miner v. Atlass

Miner v. Atlass’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

269
cited by 269 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

132 federal appellate · 25 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 269 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. (1991), Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman (1962)

132 federal appellate · 25 district · 6 state decisions

990196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedAtlass v. Miner (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1781 · 28 U.S.C. § 2071 · 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 2073 · 28 U.S.C. § 2074 · 28 U.S.C. § 331

Relies on Hickman v. Taylor · Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. · Fisk · William Cary and Samuel Cary v. Edward Curtis

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

  1. “shall be introduced only after mature consideration of informed opinion from all relevant quarters, with all the opportunities for comprehensive and integrated treatment which such consideration affords.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to regulate their practice in such a manner as they deem most expedient for the due administration of justice, provided the same are not inconsistent with these rules.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Miner held that this omission 'must be taken as an advertent declination of the opportunity to institute the discovery-deposition procedure of Civil Rule 26(a) throughout courts of admiralty.'”
    2 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.