Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 370 F.2d 418 - Cord v. Smith

Cord v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

370 F.2d 418 · 1966

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Greater Boston Television Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Greater Boston Television Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Intervenor. Charles River Civic Television, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcasters Inc., Intervenors. Whdh, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boston Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Greater Boston Tv Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Whdh, Inc., Boston Broadcasters Inc., Intervenors (1971), Armstrong v. McAlpin (1980)

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

190196619701980199020002010decided

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 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. · Ruby v. Secretary of the United States Navy · E. L. Cord, Etc. v. Calvin J. 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Ordinarily, the filing of a notice of appeal brings the whole case to this court, and this court can then make such orders, directed to the court that tried the case, as may be proper. Yet the trial court is not technically a party to the case on appeal. In form, a proceeding under the All Writs Act is different, in that the court is nominally a party to the proceeding. In substance, however, and almost universally in practice, the burden of the litigation is carried by the real parties in interest rather than by the respondent court, just as it was here.”
    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.