C.B. Trucking, Inc. v. Waste Management, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
137 F.3d 41 · 1998
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n (1998), Rodriguez-Cuervos v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (1999)
23 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Massachusetts District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. · LeBlanc v. Great American Insurance · Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Co. · Ayala-Gerena v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co. · Morrissey v. Boston Five Cents Savings Bank
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“indicate how the emergent facts, if adduced, will influence the outcome of the pending summary judgment motion”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party ordinarily may not attempt to meet a summary judgment challenge head-on but fall back on Rule 56(f) if its first effort is unsuccessful.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]his does not mean, however, that Rule 56(1) has no bite or that its prophylaxis extends to litigants who act lackadaisically; use of the rule not only requires meeting several benchmarks . . . but also requires due diligence both in pursuing discovery before the summaiy judgment initiative surfaces and in pursuing an extension of time thereafter. In other words, rule 56(f) is designed to minister to the vigilant, not to those who slumber on perceptible rights.”
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.