Norman v. Apache Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
19 F.3d 1017 · 1994
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 237 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Baker v. Putnal (1996), Leffall v. Dallas Independent School District (1994)
78 federal appellate · 6 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Erie Co v. Tompkins · California ex rel. State Lands Commission v. United States · Fitz-Gerald v. Hull
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 237 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clift v. Clift · Auclair v. Sher““ ‘[S]hut-m is a generic term used to refer to the closing of the [valves] through which oil and gas flow through a well, its legal meaning refers to the closing of [valves] when production at a well capable of producing in paying quantities is temporarily halted to repair or clean the well, to allow reservoir pressure to build, or for a lack of market.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The denial of a motion by the district court, although not formally expressed, may be implied by the entry of a final judgment or of an order inconsistent with the granting of the relief sought by the motion.”
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.