Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 390 U.S. 606 - Stern v. South Chester Tube Co.

Stern v. South Chester Tube Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

102
cited by 102 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 102 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. Federal Communications Commission (1984), Richardson v. United States (1972)

40 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions

4501968197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedJ. David STERN and Sophie L. Siegel, Appellants, v. SOUTH CHESTER TUBE COMPANY, Appellee (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1651

Relies on Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Joseph Guffey v. James a Smith · Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Hager · Rosenbaum v. Bauer · McIntire v. Wood

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

  1. “mandatory injunction” but cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 in his complaint, and to both 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a) in his briefs to this Court, which are the Mandamus and Venue Act and the All Writs Act, respectively. The magistrate judge and the district court, therefore, interpreted Cohn's request as one for mandamus relief. For purposes of this case, the distinction between a mandatory injunction and mandamus relief is of little, if any, significance. Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted in dicta that "[t]he distinction drawn ... between mandamus and a mandatory injunction seems formalistic in the present day and age,”
    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.