Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 F.1d 424 - Rodgers v. Pitt

Rodgers v. Pitt’s Empirical Analysis

89 F. 424 · 1898

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
September 1937
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1937

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

4018981900191019201930decided

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 Cartwright's Case · Ex parte Casey · Ex parte Hollis · Thompson v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Mahoney v. Van Winkle

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The defendant in this case was bound to obey the injunction, and, when he interfered with, the court’s order, he was acting at his peril. He certainly ought not to have acted upon his own judgment as to what his rights were, when it was manifest that his acts would, at least, amount to a technical violation of the terms of the injunction. It was not for him to set up his own opinion as to the meaning and effect of the injunction. If he entertained any doubt as to what he might do without violating the injunction, he should have applied to the court for a modification of the injunction, or for the privilege of doing certain acts which, by the advice of counsel, he claims he had the right to do.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.