Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 F.2d 363 - Williams v. Mumford

Williams v. Mumford’s Empirical Analysis

511 F.2d 363 · 1975

Citation profile

87
cited by 87 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
November 1999
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1999 · most notably Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay (1978), Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. (1978)

59 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

720197519801990decided

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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. · Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger

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

  1. “(a) The courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: (1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States, * * * granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions * * *.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “as an unwarranted expansion of the statutory language”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A]n order refusing to certify a class action is generally not a final decision within the meaning of section 1291. It does not dispose of litigation. It is purely procedural in nature, in that it determines merely the parties to the action without expressing any judgment as to the merits of the case. Moreover, the correctness of the District Court s determination does not evade review since it, along with other procedural decisions, is brought up on appeal after final disposition on the merits. [Footnote omitted.]”
    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.