Tripp v. May’s Empirical Analysis
189 F.2d 198 · 1951
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Donovan v. Agnew (1983), LAC Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt (1983)
23 federal appellate · 2 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 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 213 · 29 U.S.C. § 251 (Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996) · 29 U.S.C. § 259
Relies on Walling US v. General Industries Co · Lassiter v. Guy F. Atkinson Co. · Hurd v. Sheffield Steel Corp. · 88 F. Supp. 664 - Hennessey v. Federal Security Administrator
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Defendants' first contention is that it was error for the court to entertain and rule on plaintiff's oral cross motion for summary judgment advanced at the time of hearing on defendants' motion, without the requisite ten days' notice. However, as we view the record presented we are not convinced that that fairly describes the court's disposition of this cause. While the hearing was described as `on the motion of defendants for a summary judgment,' it appears to be a fair inference from the record that the court and the parties at that time treated it as final and as presenting everything which could be presented in the determination of the issues of the cause. * * * "Defendants admit that they made no objection to the alleged procedural defect now asserted, either following the hearing or in their statement of points for appeal, but explain that they were unaware of it, supposing that the rule was as stated in the case, Hooker v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., D.C., 66 F. Supp. 313 . It is true that there has been some conflict of decision on the question. The problem is discussed in 3 Barron and Holtzoff, § 1239: "`This rule (Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A.) makes no specific provision for a case in which the opposing party, and not the moving party, is entitled to summary judgment. Several cases have held that since the purpose of this procedure is to expedite the disposition of cases, a summary judgment may be rendered against the party moving for judgment and in favor of t”
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.