Borges v. Loftis’s Empirical Analysis
87 F.2d 734 · 1937
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1964
1 federal appellate ·
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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia State of Ohio
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The appellants claim that the District Judge should have called, in another District Judge and a. Circuit Judge as required by Section-266 of the Judicial Code ( 28 U.S.C.A., Section 380 ), and that, not. having done so, he acted without, jurisdiction. The answer to this-contention is that the county ordinance was not a state statute within-the meaning of Judicial Code § 266. The fact that the county ordinance-was adopted in conformity with a-state plan applicable to a large number of counties in the state does not. convert the ordinance passed by the county board of supervisors into a statute of the state.””
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.