Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 455 F.2d 977 - Thonen v. Jenkins

Thonen v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis

455 F.2d 977 · 1972

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
September 2011
most recently cited

19 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2011

19 federal appellate ·

8019721980199020002010decided

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 Bell v. Hood · Bailey v. DeQuevedo · Stanford v. Utley · Martin Marietta Corp. v. Federal Trade Commission

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

  1. ““Our examination of the record discloses that in an opinion filed in subsequent proceedings in this case, the district judge stated that the order appealed from was entered with the agreement of all counsel of record, including counsel for defendants. The accuracy of this statement is not challenged in the brief filed on behalf of defendants in this court. Indeed, the district judge’s statement is neither mentioned nor is his opinion included in the appendix which defendants filed. We accept the district judge’s statement as complete and accurate. The district court had jurisdiction of the case. Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 , 66 S.Ct. 773 , 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). It is, therefore, axiomatic that defendants cannot appeal from an order entered with their consent unless they establish facts to nullify their consent.””
    3 later decisions 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.