Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 450 F.2d 279 - Ford v. Kammerer

Ford v. Kammerer’s Empirical Analysis

450 F.2d 279 · 1971

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc. (1991), Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman (1985)

35 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

21019711980199020002010decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 411

Relies on Howat v. State of Kansas · Newton v. Kings County Lighting Co. · Ford v. Kammerer

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

  1. “[t]he longstanding, salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “shall describe in reasonable detail ... the act or acts sought to be restrained.”
    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.