Brucker v. Fisher’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.2d 759 · 1931
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1972
5 federal appellate ·
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 Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. · In Re Buder et al · Fisher v. Brucker
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““3. To justify hearing before three-judge court, and subsequent appeal direct to Supreme Court, application for interlocutory injunction must be pressed to hearing, but not necessarily decided (Jud.Code § 266 [ 28 U.S.C.A. § 380 ]). “4. Jurisdiction of three-judge court convened to hear application for interlocutory injunction continues to end, or until application for temporary injunction has been withdrawn (Jud.Code § 266 [ 28 U.S.C.A. § 380 ]). “5. Defendant’s voluntary consent to inaction by state officers in lieu of preliminary restraining order, or interlocutory injunction, should not divest three-judge court of jurisdiction. * * * “6. Existence of other grounds of federal jurisdiction, or fact that court placed final decision on nonconstitutional grounds, does not affect jurisdiction of statutory three-judge courts.””
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.