United States v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
472 F.2d 261 · 1972
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2023 · most notably Golden State Bottling Company Inc v. National Labor Relations Board (1973), Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. (1979)
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 13 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
Relies on United States v. United Mine Workers of America · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · Walker v. City of Birmingham · Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Company · Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As this Court is well aware, school desegregation orders often strongly excite community passions. School orders are, like in rem orders, particularly vulnerable to disruption by an undefinable class of persons who are neither parties nor acting at the instigation of parties. * * * The peculiar problems posed by school cases have required courts to exercise broad and flexible remedial powers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order ... is binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise. . . . (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Rule 65(d) as a codification rather than a limitation of courts' common-law powers, cannot be read to restrict the inherent power of a court to protect its ability to render a binding judgment.”
2 later decisions 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.