Duchek v. Jacobi’s Empirical Analysis
646 F.2d 415 · 1981
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc. (1995), Argento v. Village of Melrose Park (1988)
34 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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
Relies on Angel v. Bullington · Donovan v. City of Dallas · Goldman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · Railway Company v. Whitton's Administrator · Terral v. Burke Construction 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The procedure on execution, in proceedings supplementary to and in aid of a judgment, and in proceedings on and in aid of execution shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state in which the district court is held, existing at the time the remedy is sought, except that any statute of the United States governs to the extent that it is applicable.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[in] determining jurisdiction, district courts of the United States must look to the sources of their power, article III of the United States Constitution and Congressional statutory grants of jurisdiction, not to the acts of state legislatures. However extensive their power to create and define substantive rights, the states have no power directly to enlarge or contract federal jurisdiction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever a general rule as to property or personal rights, or injuries to either, is established by State legislation, its enforcement by a Federal court in a case between proper parties is a matter of course, and the jurisdiction of the court, in such case, is not subject to State limitation.””
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.