Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 114 F.3d 108 - American Airlines, Inc. v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Inc.

American Airlines, Inc. v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

114 F.3d 108 · 1997

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 994 F. Supp. 460 - Aziz Zarif Shabazz v. Pico (1998), Wenzel v. Missouri-American Water Co. (2005)

14 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

240199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Camfield Tires, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp. · Wilson v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · RSBI Aerospace, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Insurance · Davis v. Fleming Companies, Inc.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a party should not be allowed to create issues of credibility by contradicting his own earlier testimony. Ambiguities and even conflicts in a deponent’s testimony are generally matters for the jury to sort out, but a district court may grant summary judgment where a party’s sudden and unexplained revision of testimony creates an issue of fact where none existed before. Otherwise, any party could head off a summary judgment motion by supplanting previous depositions ad hoc with a new affidavit, and no case would ever be appropriate for summary judgment.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[p]arties to a motion for summary judgment cannot create sham issues of fact in an effort to defeat summary judgment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[o]nly in circumstances . . . where the conflicts between the deposition and affidavit raise . . . sham issues should summary judgment be granted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.