Pfotzer v. Aqua System, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
162 F.2d 779 · 1947
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2007 · most notably Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co. (1989), Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. (1961)
44 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 12 (§ 1 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 25 (§ 15 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 7 (§ 8 of the Sherman Antitrust Act)
Relies on Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States · Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company · Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works · Bauer Cie v. James O'Donnell · Boston Store of Chicago v. American Graphophone 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Moreover, as a new question there is plausibility in the argument that the very purpose of the plea, nolo contendere, is limited to disposing of the prosecution in which it is entered; and that, just as it is not to be treated as an admission of the ‘operative’ facts in another action, so it is not to be treated as an admission of facts which may impeach a witness in another action. Such indeed is the law of Massachusetts and of New Hampshire; on the other hand in a number of jurisdictions it has been held that a conviction on such a plea is as competent to impeach a witness as one entered on a plea of guilty or a verdict. * * * The only relevant question is what are the limitations which the law assures the accused that he will be entitled to invoke, if he files the plea. That is a mere question of what the courts have ’decided — one alternative is no more rational than the other—”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[S]o far as we can see, the greater number of jurisdictions allow the conviction as evidence to impeach a witness. Where there is a doubt as to the competency of evidence, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 43(a) . . . admonishes us to admit it rather than to exclude it; and for that reason we think it should have been here admitted. In all such cases there is of course the danger that the jury will use the plea as an admission of the 'operative' facts; but that is equally true of a conviction on a plea of guilty or on a verdict. Whether the attempt is ever practicable to limit its use to the witness's credibility, and whether, if not, its use is an injustice, are not open questions for us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The deposition of Kaestner taken before the trial was admissible as evidence: in chief, if Kaestner was an officer of the Acqua Company when it was taken (Rule 26(d) (2); and in any event, to contradict his testimony on the stand. (Rule 26(d) (1)).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dunahoo v. Brooks
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.