Hirsch v. Stone’s Empirical Analysis
62 F.2d 120 · 1932
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2007
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co. · Blair v. City of Chicago · Holmes v. Goldsmith · Hotel Company v. Wade · Hamer v. New York Railways Co.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Further, though jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the collusive, col-orable refusal of a trustee with title to sue [citing Hamer], neither can it be defeated by realigning with plaintiffs a trustee sued as defendant, who though he should be on the same side with plaintiffs, has taken a position antagonistic to them, and has refused to act in their behalf. (62 F.2d p. 122)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reed v. Robilio
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.