Kattelman v. Madden’s Empirical Analysis
88 F.2d 858 · 1937
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2007
14 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 Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. · Oriel v. Russell · Graham v. Boston, Hartford & Erie Railroad · New Lamp Chimney Company v. Ansonia Brass and Copper Company · Grant v. A. B. Leach & 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * the reason of the thing inexorably constrains the conclusion, that lack of antecedent notice of the appointment of a receiver is cured and becomes immaterial, when a party, who objects to the appointment of a receiver, is later given an opportunity to appear and be heard on a motion to set aside and vacate such orders of appointment. And so the cases hold. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. Hobart, (C.C.A.) 244 F. 385 ; 53 C.J. 61; Boyd v. Brown, 79 Colo. 568 , 274 [should be 247] P. 181; West v. Chasten, 12 Fla. 315 ; Hancock v. Am. Bonding & Co., 86 Ill.App. 630 .” Kattelman v. Madden, 8 Cir., 1937, 88 F.2d 858 , 863.”
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.