Chappell v. Goltsman’s Empirical Analysis
186 F.2d 215 · 1950
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Hayden v. First National Bank (1979), Barbara R. Gross v. Southern Railway Company, Nancy Ruth Canipelli v. Southern Railway Company (1969)
43 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. · Elgin National Watch Company v. Illinois Watch Case Company W · American Ins. v. Gentile. Bros. · Farrall v. District of Columbia Amateur Athletic Union
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. Lack of competition — plaintiffs being in the food-product business and defendants in the wine business. 2. That Bama is geographic in significance and that defendants are using it to indicate that their wine is made from Alabama blackberries. 3. That the defendants’ labels are so different from plaintiffs’ in color and appearance that there could and would be no confusion. 4. That Bama is the nickname of the State of Alabama and that plaintiffs have no right to its exclusive use. 5. The trade-mark Bama has been used to such an extent by others that it does not signify plaintiffs’ products to the exclusion of others. 6. That the goods of the parties are of different descriptive properties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chappell v. Goltsman““But disputed issues of fact cannot be resolved by affidavits, nor may affidavits be treated for purposes of the motion for summary judgment as proof contrary to well pleaded facts in the complaint. * * * Summary judgment is authorized ‘only where the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, where it is quite clear what the truth is, that no genuine issue remains for trial, and that the purpose of the rule is not to cut litigants off from their right of trial by jury if they really have issues to try’. * * * It is no part of the court’s duty to decide factual issues but only to determine whether there are any such issues to be tried.” 186 F.2d 218 . [Citing cases.] 7”
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.