Dixon v. Pro Image Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2022
2 district · 20 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 15 U.S.C. § 77D (§ 4 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77E (§ 5 of the Securities Act of 1933)
Relies on 47 Cal. 3d 654 - Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. · Jane Perlman v. C. Russell Feldmann, Newport Steel Corporation · Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp. · Winegar v. Froerer Corp. · Alf v. State Farm Fire & Casualty 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'harmonize and give effect to all of [its] provisions' ") (alteration in original) (internal citations omitted). 19 Next, Orlob argues the district court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment by "refusing to rule that the Combined Agreement provides that [Orlob] contracted not to compete with [Wasatch and the Jensens].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the language within the four corners of the contract is unambiguous, the parties' intentions are determined from the plain meaning of the contractual language, and the contract may be interpreted as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[SJummary Judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
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.