Goosby v. Osser’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
470 federal appellate · 178 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,112 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Bell v. Wolfish (1979), San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
470 federal appellate · 178 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedGoosby v. Osser (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Reynolds v. Sims · Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Douglas v. People of State of California · Boddie v. Connecticut · Brown v. Board of Education
Cited together with Hagans v. Lavine · Ex parte Poresky · Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson · Hannis Distilling Company v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein
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 1,112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of this court as to foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.”
82 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A “controversy” in this sense must be one that is appropriate for judicial determination. A justiciable controversy is thus distinguished from a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character; from one that is academic or moot. The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. * * *”
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.