Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
403 F.2d 437 · 1968
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2002
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 Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Stassen for President Citizens Committee v. Jordan · English v. Cunningham · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · State Corp. Commission v. Federal Power Commission
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his is a matter which transcends the interests of the parties. The purity of the judicial process and its institutions is the thing at stake. Whatever might be the usual consequences of res judicata ..., we reject them here.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[This bill] would amend the Federal statute — section 455 of title 28 — by making it conform, with two exceptions, to the same standards of disqualification as set forth in the Code of Judicial Conduct. Thus, both the statutory and the ethical standards for disqualification will be virtually identical. The most significant provision in these new standards would require a judge to disqualify himself in any case in which he has a financial interest, however small, in the proceeding. Under the existing statute, disqualification is required for a ‘substantial’ financial interest. With respect to this change, the issue is very simple: For example, if the financial interest is but a few shares of stock in a corporation, such a small holding is probably but a small part of the judge’s investments and there would be no great loss to him if he should decide to change that investment in order to eliminate any possible • grounds of disqualification. On the other hand, if the number of shares represents a large investment no one could question that ownership of such shares requires disqualification.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We therefore conclude that the interests of justice require that there be a judicial factual hearing and determination of the charges in and related to [2], [3], and [4] either singly or in combination.””
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.