Weiser v. White’s Empirical Analysis
505 F.2d 912 · 1975
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently October 2006 · most notably United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Industries, Inc. (1975), Stallworth v. Monsanto Co. (1977)
38 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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 15 U.S.C. § 29 · 28 U.S.C. § 1253 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. · Frey v. United States · New York v. Penn Central Transportation Co. · Cascade Natural Gas Corporation v. El Paso Natural Gas Co People of State of California
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the orderly process of judicial administration requires that any appeal from the denial of intervention by a properly constituted three-judge district court must be to the Supreme Court, and not this Court”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“granting or denying, . . . an interlocutory or permanent injunction . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Ordinarily, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, no appeal lies from an order denying leave to intervene where intervention is a permissive matter within the discretion of the court. United States v. California Co-op. Canneries, 279 U.S. 553, 556 , 49 S.Ct. 423, 424 , 73 L.Ed. 838 . The permissive nature of such intervention necessarily implies that, if intervention is denied, the applicant is not legally bound or prejudiced by any judgment that might be entered in the case. He is at liberty to assert and protect his interest in some more appropriate proceeding. Having no adverse effect upon the applicant, the order denying intervention accordingly falls below the level of appealability. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.