Smuck v. Hobson’s Empirical Analysis
408 F.2d 175 · 1969
Citation profile
152 federal appellate · 34 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 317 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Bender v. Williamsport Area School District (1986), Keyes v. School District No 1 Denver Colorado (1973)
152 federal appellate · 34 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Baker v. Carr · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Flast v. Cohen · Bolling v. Sharpe · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same
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 317 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'is primarily a practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage“"This does not imply that the need for an `interest' in the controversy should or can be read out of the rule. But the requirement should be viewed as a prerequisite rather than relied upon as a determinative criterion for intervention. If barriers are needed to limit extension of the right to intervene, the criteria of practical harm to the applicant and the adequacy of representation by others are better suited to the task. If those requirements are met, the nature of his `interest' may play a role in determining the sort of intervention which should be allowedwhether, for example, he should be permitted to contest all issues, and whether he should enjoy all the prerogatives of a party litigant." Smuck v. Hobson, supra . (Footnote omitted.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.”
3 later decisions 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.