AFFILIATED UTE CITIZENS OF UTAH Et Al. v. UNITED STATES Et Al.

1972-06-12 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

read the judgment

4What it rests on

5Relied 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.

19731 judgments19751 judgments19761 judgments19771 judgments4 years silent19811 judgments

5 judgments have relied on it, across 1973–1981

first 1973 · last 1981 · busiest 1973 (1 judgments)

1981-07-06Ruth PANTER Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARSHALL FIELD & CO. Et Al., Defendants-Appellees; Richard WEISS Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARSHALL FIELD & CO., Defendants-AppelleesSeventh Circuit 1977-03-23SANTA FE INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al. v. GREEN Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1976-06-14TSC INDUSTRIES, INC., Et Al. v. NORTHWAY, INC.Supreme Court of the United States 1975-10-06BLUE CHIP STAMPS Et Al. v. MANOR DRUG STORESSupreme 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

What it rests on

1970-01-26MILLS Et Al. v. ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1968-08-13Securities and Exchange Commission v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., a Texas Corporation, Charles F. Fogarty, Richard D. Mollison, Walter Holyk, Kenneth H. Darke, Francis G. Coates, Claude O. Stephens, John A. Murray, Earl L. Huntington, and Harold B. Kline, Defendants- Securities and Exchange Commission v. David M. Crawford and Richard H. ClaytonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1965-05-04John B. JANIGAN, Defendant, Appellant, v. Frederick B. TAYLOR Et Al., Plaintiffs, AppelleesFirst Circuit 1963-12-09SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. CAPITAL GAINS RESEARCH BUREAU, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

21 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.