Begnaud v. White’s Empirical Analysis
170 F.2d 323 · 1948
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 148 W. Va. 160 - Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York (1963), Taft Broadcasting Company v. United States (1991)
59 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 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 Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Frederick Lowrey v. Territory of Hawaii · Walling v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co. · M. Snower & Co. v. United States · American Barge Line Co. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel 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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he fact that both parties make motions for summary judgment . . . does not require the Court to rule that no fact issue exists.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The authorities indicate that the trial judge should be slow in passing upon a motion for summary judgment which would deprive a party of his right to a trial by jury .ivhere there is a reasonable indication that a material fact is in dispute.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is settled that a summary judgment in an action may be entered if, but only if, the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to the judgment he seeks as a matter of law. Such a judgment should never be entered for a defendant on his motion, unless he be entitled to it beyond all doubt. To warrant its entry, the facts alleged or admitted by the plaintiff, or demonstrated beyond reasonable question to exist, should disclose defendant’s right to a judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy, and they should affirmatively show that plaintiff would not be entitled to recover under any discernible circumstances. Being an extreme remedy, a summary judgment should be awarded only if and when the truth is quite clear. And all reasonable doubt touching the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against a party who has moved for summary judgment.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 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.