Johnnie Ray LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN HOME SITES CORP., Defendant-Appellee

1971-06-11 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · United States

read the judgment

4What it rests on

6Relied 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.

19722 judgments19732 judgments19741 judgments19751 judgments

6 judgments have relied on it, across 1972–1975

first 1972 · last 1975 · busiest 1972 (2 judgments)

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 1972-03-24NAACP, Plaintiff, Phillip Paradise, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of the Class Similarly Situated, Intervening Plaintiff, United States of America, Plaintiff and Amicus Curiae, v. Walter L. ALLEN, as Director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety, His Agents, Assigns, and Successors in Office, Stanley Frazer, as Personnel Director, Personnel Dept., State of Alabama, His Agents, Assigns, and Successors in Office, Defendants; UNITED STATES of America by John N. MITCHELL, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v. John S. FRAZER, as Director, Alabama Personnel Department, Et Al., DefendantsDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama 1972-01-17Owen S. KNIGHT Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Rocco AUCIELLO Et Al., Defendants, AppelleesFirst Circuit

What it rests on

1970-01-26MILLS Et Al. v. ELECTRIC AUTO-LITE CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1968-03-18NEWMAN Et Al. v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1967-05-08FLEISCHMANN DISTILLING CORP. Et Al. v. MAIER BREWING CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1964-06-08J. I. CASE CO. Et Al. v. BORAKSupreme Court of the United States

2 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.