Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 F.2d 464 - Arnstein v. Porter

Arnstein v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

154 F.2d 464 · 1946

Citation profile

580
cited by 580 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

184 federal appellate · 52 district · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 580 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood (1962), Curtis v. Loether (1974)

184 federal appellate · 52 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 22 states

1230194619501960197019801990200020102020decided

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. § 639

Relies on Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Associated Press v. United States · Gorham Company v. White · Southern Pac Co v. Bogert · United States v. Cooper Corp.

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 580 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(I)f there are no similarities, no amount of evidence of access will suffice to prove copying.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`there is the slightest doubt as to the facts.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[Wjhere, as here, credibility ... is crucial summary judgment becomes improper and a trial indispensable. It will not do, in such a case, to say that, since the plaintiff, in the matter presented by his affidavits, has offered nothing which discredits the honesty of the defendant, the latter’s deposition must be accepted as true. We think that Rule 56 was not designed thus to foreclose plaintiffs privilege of examining defendant at trial, especially to matters peculiarly within the defendant’s knowledge.”
    5 later decisions 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.