Russo v. Kirby’s Empirical Analysis
453 F.2d 548 · 1971
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2002 · most notably Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle (1974), Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co. (1973)
20 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1337 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343
Relies on Goldberg v. Kelly · Dandridge v. Williams · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Snyder v. Harris · Reetz v. Bozanich
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Jurisdiction under § 1337 does not attach on the bare assertion that a right under an act regulating commerce is infringed. Facts must be alleged to show that federal law in the particular case creates a duty or remedy ... This, of course, is the requirement, so frequently referred to, that a case arise ‘directly’ under federal law. ... As Professor Wechsler has said, ‘Though the decisions are not free from vacillation, their essential purpose is to hold the meeting of the statute limited to cases where the plaintiff’s cause of action, the rule of substance under which he claims the right to have a remedy, is the product of federal law.’ ” 453 F.2d at 551 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he clear purpose of Goldberg hearings is to give eligible recipients an opportunity to prove the facts of their eligibility before their benefits are terminated, 397 U.S. at 264-267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 . A hearing would be required, for example, if some of the recipients denied that they were strikers. The dispute here is on a point of law and there was no occasion for a hearing on the point.” Id. at 551.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to provide full-time care for other members of [his or her] household who are wholly incapacitated, or who are children, and for whom required care is not otherwise reasonably available .”
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.