Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 48 F.2d 79 - Mitchell v. Lay

Mitchell v. Lay’s Empirical Analysis

48 F.2d 79 · 1930

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 1988
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1988 · most notably Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co. (1933), Cohen v. Young (1942)

23 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

160193019401950196019701980decided

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 Re Metropolitan Railway Receivership · Ryerson v. United States · Brown Bonnell Co v. Lake Superior Iron Co · Chapman v. Brewer · Mower v. Fletcher

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

  1. “Ordinarily the right to appeal from the order appointing receiver which is authorized by section 129 [now Section 1292(2)] is amply sufficient to protect the parties, and an appeal from an order refusing to vacate the receivership would be entirely unnecessary and it would tend to excuse the defendant from appealing from the order appointing a receiver which it is his duty to do if he is dissatisfied therewith, but when the question is raised by a person who is brought into the court after the receiver is appointed and who has had no opportunity and no right to appeal from the order appointing a receiver, the situation is entirely different. His first opportunity to be heard with reference to the appointment of a receiver is upon his application to have the receivership vacated.”
    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.