Vale v. Bonnett’s Empirical Analysis
191 F.2d 334 · 1951
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Plouffe v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad (1971), United Artists Corporation v. Masterpiece Productions, Inc., and Robert S. Benjamin, Arthur B. Krim, Seymour M. Peyser (1955)
55 federal appellate · 3 district · 32 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 Anne Sweeney v. William G Errving · Johnson v. United States · Dewey v. Clark · Washington Gas Light Co. v. Baker. Public Utilities Commission of District of Columbia v. Baker
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This, with expressions in an opinion filed by the trial court, is sufficient basis for a nunc pro tunc order as to the matters contained in this amendatory order. While we do not consider the securing of such an order good practice, at least in the relatively early stage of the general enforcement of Rule 54 (b) we shall hear the appeal rather than remand and require the parties to start anew.” Id. at 335 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]anger is a relative term. Inherently dangerous may be defined as 'unusually hazardous.' However, it is also a relative term depending on the entire situation under examination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Judgment Upon Multiple Claims. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment upon one or more but less than all of the claims only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates less than all the claims shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims.”
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.