Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 F.2d 131 - Mays v. Kirk

Mays v. Kirk’s Empirical Analysis

414 F.2d 131 · 1969

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
April 1998
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently April 1998 · most notably Lowe v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, A Division of Litton Systems, Inc. (1984), Pacheco De Perez v. AT&T Co. (1998)

24 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1301969197019801990decided

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 Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · California Water Service Co. v. City of Redding · Cox v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · United States v. State of Minnesota · Wright v. Roseberry

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

  1. “To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action. . . . The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effect, and defeated if they receive another. (Citations omitted.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(L)ack of substantiality in a federal question may appear either because it is obviously without merit or because its unsoundness so clearly results from the previous decisions of (the Supreme Court) as to foreclose the subject.”
    2 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.