Alexander v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. (1984), In Re Johns-Manville Corp. (1984)
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1395 (§ 1801 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1396 (§ 1900 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2681
Relies on Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino · In re Debs · Schmidt v. Lessard · Jefferson & Clearfield Coal & Iron Co. v. United States · Tioga Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania New York L E
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Amicus curiae is a latin phrase for “friend of the court” as distinguished from an advocate before the court. It serves only for the benefit of the court, assisting the court in cases of general public interest by making suggestions to the court, by providing supplementary assistance to existing counsel, and by insuring a complete and plenary presentation of difficult issues so that the court may reach a proper decision. An amicus curiae is not a party to the litigation and therefore does not necessarily represent the views or interests of either party. Since an amicus does not represent the parties but participates only for the benefit of the court, it is solely within the discretion of the court to determine the fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.”
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.