Hobson v. Hansen’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2015 · most notably United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald (1977), Smuck v. Hobson (1969)
21 federal appellate · 8 district · 12 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. § 291
Relies on Massachusetts v. Mellon · Cardillo v. United States · Cascade Natural Gas Corporation v. El Paso Natural Gas Co People of State of California · Sam Fox Publishing Company v. United States · Kaufman v. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A.
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the “bound” language [of the prior rule] was read litterally in the sense of res judicata, it could defeat intervention in some meritorious cases. . . . This reasoning might be linguistically justified by original Rule 24 (a) (2); but it could lead to poor results. . . . The amendment provides that an applicant is entitled to intervene in an action when his position is comparable to that of a person under Rule 19(a) (2) (i) [in Washington, CR 19(a)(2)(A)], as amended, unless his interest is already adequately represented in the action by existing parties. The Rule 19(a) (2) (i) criterion imports practical considerations, and the deletion of the “bound” language similarly frees the rule from undue preoccupation with strict considerations of res judicata.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.