Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Golden Triangle’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.3d 351 · 1997
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. (1999), Marilyn Price Lohren Price Cheryl Cramer Daniel Mason Nicole Cramer Nicholas Cramer v. Albert Kramer Stephen D'Anjou Joseph Deladurantey City of Torrance (2000)
21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Wells v. Hico Independent School District · Lama v. Borras · Locricchio v. Legal Services Corp. · Whalen v. Unit Rig, 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.
“[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may: (A) resolve the issue against the party; and (B) grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against the party on a claim or defense that, under the controlling law, can be maintained or defeated only with a favorable finding on that issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[E]ven if summary judgment was erroneously denied, the proper redress would not be through appeal of that denial but through subsequent motions for judgment as a matter of law ... and appellate review of those motions if they were denied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A ruling by a district court denying summary judgment is interlocutory in nature and not appealable after a full trial on the merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.