ASSOCIATION OF DATA PROCESSING SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, INC., Et Al. v. CAMP, COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, Et Al.

1970-03-03 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

read the judgment

11What it rests on

2Relied 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.

19841 judgments13 years silent19971 judgments

2 judgments have relied on it, across 1984–1997

first 1984 · last 1997 · busiest 1984 (1 judgments)

1997-03-19BENNETT Et Al. v. SPEAR Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1984-06-04BLOCK, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Et Al. v. COMMUNITY NUTRITION INSTITUTE Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

What it rests on

1968-06-10FLAST Et Al. v. COHEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1967-05-22ABBOTT LABORATORIES Et Al. v. GARDNER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1966-03-25Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Aaron Henry, Robert L. T. Smith and United Church of Christ at Tougaloo v. Federal Communications Commission, Lamar Life Broadcasting Company, IntervenorD.C. Circuit 1965-12-29Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference, Town of Cortlandt, Town of Putnam Valley and Town of Yorktown v. Federal Power Commission, and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., IntervenerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1953-06-15BARROWS Et Al. v. JACKSONSupreme Court of the United States 1944-02-28STARK ET AL. v. WICKARD, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1943-11-22SWITCHMEN’S UNION OF NORTH AMERICA Et Al. v. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1943-02-08ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF NEW YORK STATE, Inc., v. ICKES, Secretary of the Interior, Et Al.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1940-03-25Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Brothers Radio StationSupreme Court of the United States 1939-01-30TENNESSEE ELECTRIC POWER CO. Et Al. v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1911-02-20Muskrat v. United States; Brown and Gritts v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States

8 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.