AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. HAWORTH Et Al.

1937-03-01 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

read the judgment

4What it rests on

4Relied 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.

19401 judgments19431 judgments18 years silent19611 judgments7 years silent19681 judgments

4 judgments have relied on it, across 1940–1968

first 1940 · last 1968 · busiest 1940 (1 judgments)

1968-06-10FLAST Et Al. v. COHEN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1961-10-09POE Et Al. v. ULLMAN, STATE'S ATTORNEYSupreme 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 1940-04-29PERKINS, SECRETARY OF LABOR, Et Al. v. LUKENS STEEL CO. Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States

What it rests on

1936-02-17ASHWANDER Et Al. v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1923-06-11Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, Et Al.; Frothingham v. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury, Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States 1922-02-27Fairchild v. Hughes, as Secretary of State of the United States, 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

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.