Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis
191 F.2d 881 · 1951
Citation profile
50 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Subin v. Goldsmith (1955), Zampos v. United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co. (1953)
50 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 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. · The Conqueror · Spring Company v. Edgar · Toebelman v. Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. · Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co.
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As a summary judgment presupposes that there is no genuine issue of fact, findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required. It was not the purpose of this rule to require a party to try his case on affidavits with no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; in fact, only in a rare case can it be determined by affidavit that the evidence available will be such as to entitle the movant, if the case were tried on its merits to a jury, to a directed verdict because that has been no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.” [Emphasis added.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The burden of proof was upon the movant, not upon the plaintiffs, and all doubts are resolved against the movant.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * It is apparent from a consideration of the court's findings and conclusions that in determining whether or not there was a genuine issue of fact the court gave no thought to what inferences might reasonably be drawn from the circumstances. The case is largely dependent upon circumstantial evidence. The court also failed to view the evidence, as it should, in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs. * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.