Driver v. Helms’s Empirical Analysis
577 F.2d 147 · 1978
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2004 · most notably Stafford v. Briggs (1980), Lamont v. Haig (1978)
22 federal appellate · 18 district · 1 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. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1361 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 5 U.S.C. § 702
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Shaffer v. Heitner · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Barr v. Matteo
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Additional persons may be joined as parties to any such action in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with such other venue requirements as would be applicable if the United States or one of its officers, employees or agencies were not a party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lamont v. Haig · Lamont v. Haig“any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“At the outset it must be understood that "minimum contacts" with a particular district or state for purposes of personal jurisdiction is not a limitation imposed on the federal courts in a federal question case by due process concerns. The Constitution does not require the federal districts to follow state boundaries.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.