Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 498 F.2d 789 - Lamb v. Carey

Lamb v. Carey’s Empirical Analysis

498 F.2d 789 · 1974

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
April 1995
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1995

7 federal appellate · 1 district ·

90197419801990decided

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 Don Morrow v. District of Columbia, in the Matter of Harry T. Alexander, Judge, District of Columbia Court of General Sessions · Roark v. Lewis · 329 F. Supp. 1089 - Blankenship v. Boyle · 344 F. Supp. 17 - Hodgson v. United Mine Workers of America

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

  1. “. (1) the ancillary matter arises from the same transaction which was the basis of the main proceeding, or arises during the course of the main matter, or is an integral part of the main matter-, (2) the ancillary matter can be determined without a substantial new fact-finding proceeding; (3) determination of the ancillary matter through an ancillary order would not deprive a party of a substantial procedural or substantive right; and (4) the ancillary matter must be settled to protect the integrity of the main proceeding or to ensure that the disposition in the main proceeding will not be frustrated. Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d at 740 (emphasis added).”
    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.