Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 495 F.2d 206 - James v. Pinnix

James v. Pinnix’s Empirical Analysis

495 F.2d 206 · 1974

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
12
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp. (1980), Ripon Society, Inc. v. National Republican Party (1975)

48 federal appellate · 14 state decisions — followed in 12 states

67019741980199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis · United States v. Price · Reitman v. Mulkey · Peterson v. City of Greenville

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

  1. “* * * The Hall state function concept does not carry over to the present case with sufficient force to compel a finding of state action. In Hall the landlady seized goods to satisfy a debt arising out of an agreement having nothing to do with the goods. Such a taking closely resembles a seizure in satisfaction of a judgment— a function traditionally performed by a sheriff or other state agent. In the present case, by contrast, the appellant-creditor possessed and claimed no roving commission to extract appellee’s goods to satisfy a separate debt. Rather, he had a specific purchase money security interest in a particular item, and he seized only that item. His action, moreover, was by long Mississippi tradition the sort of action performed by private persons, not state officials. [Citation omitted], Finally, seizure by entry into a dwelling, in Hall a major decisional factor because it was deemed an indicium of state-like behavior, was absent from the instant case. James v. Pinnix, 495 F.2d 206, 208 (5th Cir. 1974)”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Unless otherwise agreed a secured party has on default the right to take possession of the collateral. In taking possession a secured party may proceed without judicial process if this can be done without breach of the peace or may proceed by action. . . .””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “. the fact is that Mississippi cases did not sanction self-help repossession except when provided for in the parties’ contract, whereas § 9-503 allows it except when the contract is silent on the point. Thus the creditor’s arguments that § 9-503 merely carried forward the former Mississippi practice and that the contract is the sole source of summary repossession power, lose some force.”
    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.