Sardo v. McGrath’s Empirical Analysis
196 F.2d 20 · 1952
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently June 2003 · most notably Milwaukee Typographical Union No. 23 v. Newspapers, Inc. (1981), Raymond Richardson, Jr. v. Hugh F. Rivers, D. C. Board of Parole (1964)
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 28 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 McGrath v. Kristensen · National War Labor Board v. Montgomery Ward & Co. · Samara v. United States · Allison v. Mackey
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“classed inferentially among the documents in which extra pleading matters may be presented for purposes of summary judgment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. These provisions of Rule 56 are definitive and cannot be enlarged by Rule 12(b). Therefore, the extra-pleading matters presented are required to be either”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tenorio v. Camacho
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.