Thompson v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
648 F.2d 1144 · 1981
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co. (1989), Baldwin-United Corporation (1985)
12 federal appellate · 3 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 Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Chase Nat Bank v. City of Norwalk Ohio · In the Matter of Penn Central Transportation Company · Harry Like v. Proctor N. Carter
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we recognize HHS’s past ineffectiveness in securing Missouri’s compliance with AFDC regulations, this ineffectiveness does not alone amount to “active concert or participation with” the state agency within the meaning of Rule 65(d).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Crane Boom Life Guard Co. v. Saf-T-Boom Corp., 362 F.2d 317, 322 (8th Cir. 1966). 13 The circumstances of this case clearly demonstrate that the district court erred in enjoining HHS under the provisions of Rule 65(d). The gravamen of this controversy concerns Missouri's alleged failure to comply with federal regulations. For this reason, Missouri's interests do not coincide with those of HHS. Like the plaintiffs in this action, HHS seeks Missouri's full compliance with federal standards. Similarly, HHS does not stand in privity with the state agency, nor does Missouri”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Thompson v. Freeman
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.