Stamler v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
371 F.2d 413 · 1966
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2007
13 federal appellate · 2 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 Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein · Barenblatt v. United States · Ex parte Bransford · Lion Manufacturing Corporation (New Lion) v. Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States · Gojack 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because of the allegations here of the Subcommittee conduct giving an unconstitutional meaning to the statute, this case is distinguished from those where unconstitutional conduct under color of a valid statute is alleged. Ex parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354 , 60 S.Ct. 947 , 84 L.Ed. 1249 (1940). It is well established that the meaning of a statute must not be derived solely from its abstract terms, “unrelated to the definite content furnished them by the course of congressional actions.” Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 117 , 79 S.Ct. 1081, 1088 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1115 (1959).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The complaints alleged generally that the interpretation of section 18 of Rule XI as expressed by the continued conduct of the Subcommittee of the House Un-American Activities Committee attributes a meaning to the rule which renders it unconstitutional, and that this conduct consisted of the exposure of witnesses, including plaintiffs, to public scorn and obloquy and harassment and intimidation of these witnesses without any legislative purpose but rather to chill and deter them and others in the exercise of their first amendment rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stamler v. Willis“An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title. In Stamler v. Willis, supra, 371 F.2d at”
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.