Winpenny v. Krotow’s Empirical Analysis
574 F.2d 176 · 1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2018
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 28 U.S.C. § 2281
Relies on Hicks v. Miranda · Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co. · North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc. · Kahn v. Arizona State Tax Commission · Ohio Municipal Judges Association v. Davis
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(u)nder the (Pennsylvania) Municipal Claims and Tax Liens Act the filing of the claim does not affect the alleged debtor's use of the property, and no interference with that use can take place until the municipality resorts to a judicial foreclosure.”
2 later decisions 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.