Manning v. Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
13 F.3d 606 · 1994
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2014
3 federal appellate ·
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 Quabaug Rubber Co. v. Fabiano Shoe Co. · Health-Chem Corp. v. Baker · Jaser v. New York Property Insurance Underwriting Ass'n · Healy v. Rich Products Corp. · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]ven in the absence of an objection under Rule 19(a), we are obliged to consider whether M & N and OSMC are indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A district court's findings with respect to the expression of the contracting parties' intent will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.”
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.