Gerald Metals, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
132 F.3d 716 · 1997
Citation profile
21 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Nippon Steel Corporation Nkk v. United States Usa Isg (2006), Novosteel SA v. United States (2002)
21 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
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1516A (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1673D (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1677 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. United States · 590 F. Supp. 1273 - American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(I) the volume of imports of the subject merchandise, (II) the effect of imports of that merchandise on prices in the United States for domestic like products, and (III) the impact of imports of such merchandise on domestic producers of domestic like products, but only in the context of production operations within the United States.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`take[ ] into account contradictory evidence or evidence from which conflicting inferences could be drawn.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association,taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd., Winbond Electronics Corporation, Alliance Semiconductor Corporation, Galvantech, Inc., and Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., and Motorola, Inc. v. International Trade Comission v. Micron Technology, Inc. · Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association v. International Trade Commission“harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association,taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd., Winbond Electronics Corporation, Alliance Semiconductor Corporation, Galvantech, Inc., and Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc., and Motorola, Inc. v. International Trade Comission v. Micron Technology, Inc. · Taiwan Semiconductor Industry Association v. International Trade Commission
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.