Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 609 F.2d 727 - Kirchberg v. Feenstra

Kirchberg v. Feenstra’s Empirical Analysis

609 F.2d 727 · 1979

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
June 1994
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1994 · most notably KIRCHBERG v. FEENSTRA Et Al. (1981), 599 So. 2d 1058 - Cole v. Celotex Corp. (1992)

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions

320197919801990decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (§ 125 of the Truth in Lending Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Relies on Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Craig v. Boren · Reed v. Reed · Frontiero v. Richardson · Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank

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

  1. “The actual existence of a statute, prior to [a determination of unconstitutionality], is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to be considered in various aspects, — with respect to particular relations, individual and corporate, and particular conduct, private and official. Questions of rights claimed to have become vested, of status, of prior determinations deemed to have finality and acted upon accordingly, of public policy in the light of the nature both of the statute and of its previous application, demand examination.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The husband is the head and master of the partnership or community of gains; he administers its effects, disposes of the revenues which they produce, and may alienate them by an onerous title, without the consent and permission of his wife.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[e]ach spouse acting alone may manage, control, or dispose of community property unless otherwise provided by law.”
    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.