Marion County Cooperative Ass'n v. Carnation Co.’s Empirical Analysis
214 F.2d 557 · 1954
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently April 1998 · most notably Dredge Corp. v. Penny (1964), Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox Corp. (1992)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)
Relies on Engl v. Ætna Life Ins. · Radio City Music Hall Corp. v. United States · Traylor v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. · Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co. · Sprague v. Vogt
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘If it is made clearly to appear on such a motion that even though there is an issue under the pleadings there is in fact no dispute as to controlling material facts, then the court should enter summary judgment.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * Our latest expression of the rule was in the case of Durasteel v. Great Lakes Steel Corp., 8 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 438, 441 , where it was said, ‘The motion for summary judgment is not a trial of the issues but for the purpose of determining whether in fact there are any genuine issues as to material facts.’ In Ford v. Luria Steel & Trading Corp., 8 Cir., 1951, 192 F.2d 880, 882 , it was stated, ‘It has become settled law that a genuine issue as to a material fact cannot be tried and determined upon affidavits, and that it must be conclusively shown that there is no such issue in the case and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, before a summary judgment can lawfully be entered.’ We have also held that, ‘The question of the sufficiency of the evidence raises an issue of law and if, under the facts, the court would be required to direct a verdict for the moving party, then a summary judgment should be granted.’ Hurd v. Sheffield Steel Corp., 8 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 269, 271 . For other statements on the summary judgment rule, see Dulansky v. Iowa-Illinois Gas & Electric Co., 8 Cir., 1951, 191 F.2d 881 ; Traylor v. Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc., 8 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 213 ; Sprague v. Vogt, 8 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 795 ; Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 8 Cir., 1943, 139 F.2d 318 .””
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.