Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 FSUPP 428 - Kirk v. Spur Distributing Co.

Kirk v. Spur Distributing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
December 1988
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1988

2 federal appellate · 2 district ·

301950196019701980decided

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. § 1404

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

  1. “tended to show that racial antagonism was alleged to have been the underlying cause of plaintiff's trouble which culminated in the first suit being filed. The district judge in Delaware considered affidavits offered by plaintiff and by defendant, including those executed by counsel and clerks of the courts in Arkansas, both state and federal. He then decided that these affidavits set out no prejudice or bias that would or could exist for either reason assigned by plaintiff. 26 According to the district judge, the affidavit of the presiding judge in the former trial set out: 27”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The affidavit of the counsel for the plaintiff pays high tribute to the United States Judge presiding in the Division to which it is sought to transfer this case. The affidavit states, `I also wish to state that I feel that if the case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas and tried at Helena without a jury that both parties would receive a fair and impartial trial and that no prejudice would exist against either party.' 32”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “is such a severe indictment of a court of justice that the mere ipse dixit to that effect cannot alone be accepted, but we must look to the supporting facts”
    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.