VAUGHAN v. ATKINSON Et Al.

1962-06-25 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

3What it rests on

7Relied on since

0Departed from

Relied on since

The judgments that cite this one. This is the answer that tells you the case is still alive.

19671 judgments6 years silent19732 judgments19741 judgments19751 judgments5 years silent19801 judgments18 years silent19981 judgments

7 judgments have relied on it, across 1967–1998

first 1967 · last 1998 · busiest 1973 (2 judgments)

1998-11-19H. Frederick JOHNSTON, Sandra Spillane and Technicorp International II, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants Below, Appellants, v. ARBITRIUM (CAYMAN ISLANDS) HANDELS AG and Miklos Vendel, Plaintiffs Below, AppelleesSupreme Court of Delaware 1980-06-23ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. PIPER Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1975-05-12Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1974-05-28F. D. RICH CO., INC., Et Al. v. UNITED STATES for the Use of INDUSTRIAL LUMBER CO., INC.Supreme Court of the United States 1973-05-21HALL Et Al. v. COLESupreme Court of the United States 1973-05-09Gustave GERSTLE Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees (Cross-Appellants), v. GAMBLE-SKOGMO, INC., Defendant-Appellant (Cross-Appellee)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit×2 1967-05-08FLEISCHMANN DISTILLING CORP. Et Al. v. MAIER BREWING CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

What it rests on

1951-02-239 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 403, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9622 Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.Fourth Circuit 1939-04-24SPRAGUE v. TICONIC NATIONAL BANK Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1852-05-12Horace H. Day, Plaintiff in Error, v. W. James Woodworth, Miller Turner, William W. Pynchorn, Robert L. Fuller, Andrew Sisson, Harvey Clemence, Thomas Bolton, Merret Bristol, Joseph Bowen, Andrew Elmandorf, Seth G. Pope, Edward Gorham, Ephraim C. Brett, Arnold Turner, Marcus Toby, George J. Kipp, John B. Bump,-Atthouse, Erastus Brown, Erastus F. Russell, John C. Russell, Asa C. Russell, Edward P. Woodworth, Loring G. Robbins, Lorenzo H. Rice, and Mark RossiterSupreme Court of the United States

34 point outside the corpus. Read from the text, but no judgment held here answers to them. They are counted rather than hidden: this corpus is a slice, not the law.

Departed from

No judgment recorded a departure from this one.

Departure is not detected yet, and the gap is deliberate. Searching for the words the Court might use was measured on 1,019 judgments: "depart from" appears 100 times and most often means departing from the facts found by a domestic court; "overruled" appears 44 times, usually about a domestic judgment; "abandon" appears 123 times, most often as abandoned firearms. Tightened to require the Court itself as the subject, precision was still around 40%, the rest being a dissenting judge complaining, or a national supreme court departing from its own case-law. Telling a lawyer an authority is dead when it is alive is worse than saying nothing, so nothing is what this says until each candidate can be judged properly.

not characterised

Most citations carry no word at all. The Court does not always say what it is doing when it cites one of its own judgments, and where it stayed silent nothing is inferred here.