369 F. Supp. 411 - Littell v. Morton’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2014
5 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 25 U.S.C. § 81 · 26 U.S.C. § 1301 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 5 U.S.C. § 701 · 5 U.S.C. § 704
Relies on Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. · Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co. · Difronzo 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Restitution is not a mere right. It is ex gratia resting in the exercise of a sound discretion; and the court will not order it ■where the justice of the case does not call for it ... in such cases the simple but comprehensive question is whether the circumstances are such that equitably the defendant should restore to the plaintiff what he has received.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.