Goldstone v. Payne’s Empirical Analysis
94 F.2d 855 · 1938
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently November 2001
12 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41
Relies on Merchants Heat & Light Co. v. J. B. Clow & Sons · Mexican Nat Co v. Davidson Davidson · Kirby v. American Soda Fountain Co. · Kanouse v. Martin · Parker v. Ormsby
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘But, where the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case, the defect is not cured by getting personal jurisdiction of the defendant. Such a want of jurisdiction cannot be waived by pleading or any other form of consent — not even by going to. trial. * * * ’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Switzer Bros. v. Chicago Cardboard Co. · Switzer Brothers, Inc. v. Chicago Cardboard Co., Harry P. Locklin and Elmer J. Brant, General Partners, D/B/A Radiant Color Company, Intervening and Counter-Plaintiffs v. Switzer Brothers, Inc., Robert C. Switzer and Joseph L. Switzer, Counter-Defendants
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.