Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 382 U.S. 341 - United States v. Yazell

United States v. Yazell’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

966
cited by 966 later decisions
48
cited 48 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

406 federal appellate · 69 district · 150 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 966 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Santosky v. Kramer (1982), Moor v. County of Alameda (1973)

406 federal appellate · 69 district · 150 state decisions — followed in 28 states

35701966197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedUnited States v. Yazell (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance · Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States · United States v. Bess · United States v. Shimer · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan 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 966 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Both theory and the precedents of this Court teach us solicitude for state interests, particularly in the field of family and family-property arrangements.”
    30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “by their nature are and must be uniform in character throughout the Nation”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““voluntarily and deliberately make a negotiated contract with knowledge of the limited capacity and liability of the persons with whom it contracts, and thereafter insist, in disregard of such limitation, upon collecting (a) despite state law to the contrary relating to family property rights and liabilities, and (b) in the absence of federal statute, regulation or even any contract provision indicating that the state law would be disregarded”. 382 U.S. at 350-351 , 86 S.Ct. at 506 .”
    6 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.