Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 473 F.2d 863 - Thomas Baggett v. Charlie B. Richardson and James Martin

Thomas Baggett v. Charlie B. Richardson and James Martin’s Empirical Analysis

473 F.2d 863 · 1973

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Rush Pettway, Etc. v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor (1974), Funding Systems Leasing Corp. v. Pugh (1976)

35 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

24019731980199020002010decided

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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · McAllister v. United States · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · In Re Disbarment of Isserman · Kossick v. United Fruit Co.

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

  1. “[W]here there is no uniform federal rule, 'even though admiralty suits are governed by federal substantive and procedural law, courts applying maritime law may adopt state law by express or implied reference or by virtue of the interstitial nature of federal law.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(f)indings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous . . . .”
    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.