Brandon v. Hines’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp. (1989), Olson v. Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, Inc. (1986)
6 federal appellate · 35 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 9 U.S.C. § 1 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 10 (Federal Arbitration Act) · 9 U.S.C. § 2 · 9 U.S.C. § 3
Relies on United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. · Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. · Rideout v. United States · Wilko v. Swan · Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, Inc.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of appeals from — .... (2) interlocutory orders of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia— (A) granting, continuing, modifying, refusing, or dissolving or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the language of the federal appellate jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291-92 (1976), is slightly different from the language of our own jurisdictional statute, D.C.Code 1973, § 11-721, ... "this Court has generally treated the two statutes in a similar fashion.” United States v. Harrod, D.C.App., 428 A.2d 30 , 31 n. 1 (1981) (en banc). We find the Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal interlocutory appeals statute in Carson, supra, persuasive authority for our interpretation of the virtually identical language of D.C.Code 1973, § 11-721(a)(2)(A).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“All claims or disputes between the Contractor and the Owner arising out [of] or relating to the Contract, or the breach thereof, shall be decided by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association currently in effect.... The award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accordance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shaff v. Skahill
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.