Gerardi’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
18 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Cerny v. Todco Barricade Co. (2007), 993 F. Supp. 282 - Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky (1998)
18 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.
Relationships
Relies on Catlin v. United States · Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey · Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Wetzel · Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the relief; (3) whether granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) whether granting the preliminary relief will be in the public interest.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the relationship between the adjudicated and unadjudicated claims; (2) the possibility that the need for review might or might not be mooted by future developments in the district court; (3) the possibility that the reviewing court might be obliged to consider the same issue a second time; (4) the presence or absence of a claim or counterclaim which could result in set-off against the judgment sought to be made final; ©miscellaneous factors such as delay, economic and solvency considerations, shortening the time of trial, frivolity of competing claims, expense, and the like.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Rule 54(b) allows the court to direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, of the claims or parties upon an express determination that- there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. The ruling of the trial court involved in [Vanderwall’s] appeal granted no relief to anyone, and it did not determine a separate claim. The’ facts here do not present the type of situation that Rule 54(b) was intended to cover. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling was not a final judgment and was not appealable.” . .”
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.